Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

UK/Australia Pensions

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If he will make a statement about the ending of the social security agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia and its effect on pensioners reaching pension age after 28 February 2001 who have spent periods of their working life in Australia. [136106]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): People who are already receiving benefit with the help of the agreement with the Australian Government will not be affected when it terminates. We are aware that there are implications for people currently residing in the UK who had previously lived in Australia and are not yet retired. We are actively considering the full implications of the Australian Government's decision, and in particular what we can do to protect the position of those people.

Mr. Maclennan: More fundamentally, will not the Government end the discrimination whereby they index-link the British pensions of British pensioners living in the United States and European Union countries, but not those of pensioners living in the Commonwealth countries—Australia, Canada and New Zealand? Will the Government at least make arrangements to protect the thousands of United Kingdom pensioners who will retire after 28 February next year and who are unable to count their years in Australia towards their basic pension, and who do not have the opportunity to supplement their pension?

Mr. Rooker: We have no plans to change the present policy. I must make that clear, so that we do not give anybody false information. I have already said that we are looking actively at what we can do to protect those people who retire after the agreement finishes at the end of February. A perverse arrangement could come about whereby the UK Government could gain from the change. I do not see that that would be morally justified, so we want to do what we can to protect such people. However, there are a few myths that we must knock on the head. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no basic

state pension in Australia: it is all means-tested. [Interruption.] It is not all means— tested in this country. If the Government did change their policy in respect of Australia, we would be paying to the Australian Treasury. The only people who would gain in Australia are those who are so well off that they do not get the age pension in Australia.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What is the justification for the disparity in arrangements between Commonwealth countries, as compared with the United States? There is no logic in it. Is not there a need for a conference of social security Ministers of the key countries where ex-pats live? Is not liberty also involved? People want mobility in retirement, and the current arrangements are an impediment to that, particularly when abroad they can enjoy not necessarily the support of the taxpayer, but the love and succour of their families?

Mr. Rooker: I have already said that I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern. It does not matter whether a country is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years. It would cost some £300 million to change the policy for all concerned. We must also consider that as the European Union expands—pension upratings are, naturally, paid in the EU—the issue will not go away. I accept that.

Pensions Upratings

Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the relationship between the indices used to calculate annual pensions upratings and patterns of expenditure by pensioners. [136108]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Each year, when considering the uprating, consideration is given to a wide range of factors, including the retail prices index. We recently announced our intention to increase the basic state pension by more than prices, and indeed by more than earnings.

Mr. Heath: Will the Minister confirm that in two years the basic pension will be uprated on the basis of the same index as that which gave us the miserable 75p this year? Is it not odd that it contains elements that are not relevant to pensioners, and does not include items that are highly relevant, particularly to the poorer pensioner? Is it not time to stop messing about with indices, and to move instead to an independent review body? That is good enough for judges, generals and even for Members of Parliament. Should it not be good enough for pensioners?

Mr. Rooker: I did not hear a thank you in that, or any reference to the fact that the pension is to increase by 7.4 per cent. next April. I heard a reference to poorer pensioners, many of whom will get a £14 a week increase next April. That is the reality. I am more interested in making sure that we deliver what we promised next April than in discussing the hypothetical issues relating to two years hence.

Mr. Denis MacShane: On patterns of expenditure, does my right hon. Friend agree that the old motto, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs," is still a good one and might apply to pensions? Pensioners with means should accept some responsibility. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is concern about the application of the difference between personal and nursing care for the old in long-term care? Will he continue to keep this sensitive matter under review, as it causes deep concern to pensioners in Rotherham?

Mr. Rooker: I cannot give my hon. Friend a substantive answer, but I understand that the matter will be sorted out in forthcoming legislation, subject to the contents of the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall using the lowest possible index to increase state pensions last year and the highest possible index to raise duty on petrol last year? Does he further recall saying that any concessions on fuel tax would mean no more money for pensioners? Can he now explain to us at what point the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to do a double U-turn?

Mr. Rooker: We considered many issues in relation to the uprating that we announced. We did not use an index.

State Pension

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension. [136109]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Many pensioners have welcomed the increase in pensions and the winter fuel payment of £200, which is being paid from today.

Mr. Amess: Although, according to my mother, any increase in the basic state pension is welcome, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, under this rotten Government, the number of pensioners living in poverty has increased by 400,000? Does he regard the basic state pension as adequate at the moment? If it is only adequate now, will he explain why the Government, supported by the Liberals, have sustained the basic state pension at an inadequate level when the Chancellor of the Exchequer does nothing but boast about all the money he has?

Mr. Darling: Somebody kindly gave me a copy of the Conservative party briefing for this Question Time. I see that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has opted for suggested question No. 4. To be fair to him, I must say that he added one original observation, about his mother.
First, he is right that a growing number of pensioners were living in poverty. The 400,000 figure to which he referred relates to the period immediately prior to the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, which he and his party oppose. As a result of the policies that we are implementing, Britain's poorest pensioners will be getting nearly £20 more a week from next April, through the increased minimum income guarantee. That demonstrates that we now have a Government who are

helping not only all pensioners, including the hon. Gentleman's mother, but the poorest pensioners in the country, who, thanks to the Government, are some £20 a week better off. We have done more for pensioners in five years than the Tory Government did during 18 years in office. At the previous election, the hon. Gentleman ran away from Basildon; I think that he will run away again at the next election.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from the mother of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) or anybody else about the fact that the Conservative party's fraudulent one-year pensions increase offer will be paid for by stealing £2 billion from pensioners every year and by abolishing the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus? Were there any representations about the fact that, although the Liberal Democrats called the 75p increase an insult, it was precisely their policy for this year?

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is right. The Conservatives' commitment to pay pensioners £10 more a week, about which we can read in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, is a complete fraud. What the report does not say is that they are proposing to remove the £200 winter fuel payment, free television licences for over-75s and, indeed, the Christmas bonus—a payment that the shadow Chancellor previously called a much-appreciated addition for older people.
On top of that, the Conservatives ignore the fact that about 500,000 pensioners have no entitlement to the basic state pension and would lose all their £200 winter fuel payment. One million people have only a reduced entitlement to pensions and would also be worse off. Of course, 1 million men aged between 60 and 64 would get absolutely nothing.
We can see clearly that if people vote for the Conservatives at the next election, it will cost them £200 a household. I think that they will see that the Tories are once again trying to con them into believing that they can do more for pensioners, when the truth is that they could not, as they would not have the additional money to spend. People will remember that, in this Parliament, the Government are doing more for pensioners than the Tories ever did during the 18 years that they were in office.

Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State likes to be known as the pensioners' champion. Last winter, he oversaw the highest level of excess winter deaths among pensioners for nearly a quarter of a century. Is he content that he has taken sufficient steps between last winter and the one that we are about to enter to prevent tens of thousands more unnecessary winter deaths among pensioners?

Mr. Darling: As I told the hon. Gentleman last week when he asked the same question, we introduced the winter fuel payment because we recognised that too many pensioners were dying, in many instances because they could not afford to heat and eat adequately. That is why we have increased pensioners' incomes through the minimum income guarantee, which I think the hon. Gentleman is against. He was when I last asked him about it. Perhaps this week Liberal policy is slightly different. The MIG will mean that incomes will increase for the


poorest pensioners by nearly £20 a week. In addition, from today every pensioner household will receive a payment of £200 to be used towards winter fuel payments. That is much more than the Liberals ever promised to deliver.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are taking action to deal with a serious problem and one that should have no place in a civilised society. However, that is the legacy of 18 years of Tory Government.

Pensioners

Dr. Brian Iddon: What plans he has to help pensioners who do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee and who are in receipt of modest occupational pensions.[136110]

The Secretary of State for Social Security(Mr. Alistair Darling): Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The pension credit will guarantee a minimum income of £100 a week plus an added payment to reward those with savings.
The clear message is: whatever people can afford to save or to put by, it will always pay to save.

Dr. Iddon: In general, will the single pensioner with minimal capital with a small occupational pension who qualifies for the pension credit be better or worse off than a single pensioner on the basic pension who receives all the passported benefits including housing benefit, council tax benefit and the minimum income guarantee? Does my right hon. Friend agree that to encourage people to take up occupational pension schemes, they must be seen to be better off as a result?

Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Pensioners will be better off. First, the pension credit, which we are introducing from 2003, will mean for the first time that if people do what successive Governments have asked them to do and save for their retirement, they will receive a cash top-up to reward them for their effort. That is crucial if we are to get more people to save. We must be clear that there is a real incentive to save. I am glad that last week so many insurance companies and the Association of British Insurers welcomed the pension credit. They recognised that it will help people to save.
Secondly, where someone has an occupational pension or a small sum at the bank, he or she should receive some help from the state. Under the system that we inherited, one which the Tories want to perpetuate, someone could obtain help only if he or she was very poor. There are about 5 million pensioners who have modest occupational pensions or a small amount of money at the bank. For the first time, the pension credit will help them to ensure that it pays to save.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman now regret introducing the element of means-testing into pensions? What will he do about pensioners who are approaching 75 years of age who have been told that they must buy an annuity, possibly costing about £250,000? If they were to die, they would lose that capital sum.

Mr. Darling: The annuity rules have been in force for some time. As the hon. Lady knows, people can defer

taking out an annuity until the age of 75. I believe
that the present arrangements are beneficial to the majority of pensioners.
The hon. Lady raises the question of means-testing, in common with the rest of her colleagues. The only way in which we can do much more for poorer pensioners is, first, to ascertain who they are. That means that an assessment of their income is necessary. Secondly, we must then pay them more.
Under the policies that the hon. Lady and Conservatives generally are advocating—I am assuming for this purpose, although it is not a universal assumption, that she finds herself in support of the Conservative Front Bench—the poorest pensioners would lose out. The Conservatives want to return to the system where miserly increases are given to all pensioners, which does nothing for the poorest pensioners. Pensioner poverty has no place in the fourth largest economy in the world. That is why we are increasing the amount of money that goes to the poorest pensioners by £20 from next April.

Mr.Frank Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, according to his pensioner credit document and assuming that every pensioner who is eligible claims the pension credit, in 2003 half of all pensioners will still have an income of £136 a week or less? Does he also accept that his document assumes a national insurance pension increase of £1.50 a week in 2003? Does he agree with me that a re-elected Labour Government will find such an increase unacceptable and will substantially increase it?

Mr. Darling: As my right hon. Friend knows, the pension credit is to be introduced from 2003, and its effect will build up over the years. We shall have to wait and see what we do about pension increases in 2003. We have announced increases for next year and the year after as we move towards the credit. The principle established by the credit, which was welcomed by one of my Conservative predecessors, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), as a reform that should have been introduced some time ago, will make a change, because for the first time ever people who save and make sacrifices during their working lives will be rewarded for doing so.

Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State claimed on the television yesterday that 2.5 million letters have been sent to pensioners asking them to take up their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. How many successful new claims for the minimum income guarantee have resulted from his take-up campaign?

Mr. Darling: I am glad that someone was watching the television programme yesterday, because half way through it occurred to me that there would not be that many viewers on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Clearly, there was at least one. For the sake of completeness, I can tell the House that my mother was also watching.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been running a television advertising campaign, and we have just finished writing to 2.5 million pensioners. We have received about 600,000 responses so far, and of those we have processed 60,000 applicants, almost half of whom have been successful. It may also interest the


hon. Gentleman to know that from the figures so far we can tell that the other half were not successful because just over half of them have too much income and just under half have too much capital. Both those problems will be addressed by the pension credit, which the hon. Gentleman opposes.

Mr. Willetts: May I give the Secretary of State the exact figure from a parliamentary answer? Of the more than 500,000 people who Ministers say are eligible but not claiming, 24,746 extra pensioners have received the benefit, which is a 5 per cent. success rate. Does that not show that pensioners do not want to claim the minimum income guarantee? If they do not want to claim that complicated, new, means-tested payment, why on earth should they go cap in hand to claim the pension credit—the new means-tested handout that the Secretary of State has invented? I would be interested to hear from him his estimate not of how many people will theoretically be entitled to the pension credit, but of how many pensioners will claim the new pension credit.

Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman is right that people do not want to claim the minimum income guarantee, it is curious that 600,000 people have so far responded as a result of the campaign, which is about the number that we have always thought may be eligible. That implies that there is not a reluctance to get in touch to find out. All those people have made the effort—most of them by telephone, and the others have written in. Up till now, the problem with the minimum income guarantee has been the problem that we inherited from the previous Government.
If people have too much money in the bank or if they have a modest income, they get no help whatever. The hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly clear that if the Tories were returned to power they would scrap the pension credit. The result of that would be that for ever and a day pensioners who had saved or had earned an occupational pension would not be helped: they would be kicked in the teeth by an incoming Tory Government.

Mr. Willetts: May I explain to the Secretary of State what the figures really show? Of the 600,000 pensioners who phoned the helpline or tore off the slip in the newspaper, only 60,000 made a claim, fewer than half of whom were successful. That means that there have been only 24,000 successful claims.
Why is the Secretary of State trying to repeat the same mistake all over again with his new means-tested benefit? After years of progress on reducing the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits, he will take us back to a world in which more than 50 per cent. of pensioners are entitled to means-tested benefits. That is not the world in which pensioners want to live.

Mr. Darling: The Conservatives doubled means-testing during their 18 years in power. I want to return to the minimum income guarantee before dealing with the pension credit. The fact that 600,000 people responded implies that they are sufficiently interested to contact the Benefits Agency to establish whether they have an entitlement. Of those claims, only 60,000 have been processed so far, of which just under half were successful. I repeat: the two main obstacles to success are having too

much money in the bank or too much income from an
occupational pension. The pension credit will deal with both.
The main point about the pension credit is that the fundamental problem with the social security system is that it penalises people who save. If they save too much and do what successive Governments told them to do, and we should remember that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wants people under 30 to opt out of the basic state pension and to save for their retirement—

Mr. Willetts: If they want to.

Mr. Darling: Well, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that if those people saved only a modest amount, he would not help them at all because he does not accept the need for a credit to reward saving. Interestingly, independent observers—of course, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is not entirely independent, but he has some experience in this context, unlike the hon. Gentleman—have welcomed the pension credit almost universally as a way to help people to save. That reform, which is the most radical change to the social security system made during the past 50 years, is long overdue. Far from being complicated, it is quite simple. At the moment, people are penalised for their thrift, but in future it will always pay to save. That is something that the Tories can never say.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: It is a good job that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is not counting the votes in Florida—otherwise, we might not have a result before the next presidential election.
I welcome the pension credit, the increase in the minimum income guarantee and the basic state pension, and the £200 winter payment, which was announced last week. My right hon. Friend knows that in calculating the income that pensioners receive in interest from their savings, the formula used assumes—if I may put it this way—a rather high rate of return. Has he any plans to tackle that anomaly?

Mr. Darling: Yes, we do. I announced last week that we shall get rid of that ridiculous tariff income, although the hon. Member for Havant apparently wants to keep it. It is ridiculous to assume that pensioners or anyone else can get a 20 per cent. return on their savings. That is not possible anywhere, so far as I am aware. That is why we will scrap the arrangement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. There is a clear difference between us and the Conservatives. We are increasing the amount of money going to pensioners through the basic pension and the pension credit and by helping poorer pensioners. The Conservatives, on the other hand, want to penalise saving by taking £200 from every pensioner household and to begin the process of privatising the basic state pension by encouraging people under 30 to opt out.

Winter Fuel Payments

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on winter fuel payments. [136111]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Winter fuel payments have been increased to £200 this week. Payments will be issued from today.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Is not the real fraud that is being perpetrated on pensioners today the fact that a Social Security Minister promised in July that all payments for past winters would be cleared by the end of September? However, nearly 1 million pensioners are still waiting for their winter fuel payments from previous winters. Would not it be far better to consolidate winter fuel payments in the basic pension and to give a benefit, no questions asked, to all pensioners, which they would receive when they needed it, not when the Government decide that they should get it?

Mr. Darling: I note that the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to refer to the subject of Question 5. He sheds crocodile tears about the winter fuel payment and his comments are unconvincing because the Tories are committed to getting rid of it. He is concerned about men between the ages of 60 and 65 who have not yet received their winter fuel payment, but the total is only 3 per cent. and claims are still being processed. He must tell those men that under the Tories they would not get any help whatever because they would lose £200 per household. His concern has no credibility.

Mr. David Winnick: Two days after Christmas 1996, I took a group of Labour Members to No. 10 Downing street to urge—to plead—for some help to be given with heating costs because of the freezing weather. No action was taken.
Am I not right in thinking that before we came to office there were no heating additions at all unless the weather was freezing for seven consecutive days—and it had to be seven consecutive days—in which case some £8 was given only to those on income support? Is that not the difference between what we did the moment we came to office, and what the Tories did? They should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The cold weather payments scheme meant that it had to be cold for a long period, and that happens less than people might think, even in parts of the country where it appears to be cold all the time. The difference is that under our scheme every pensioner household receives a £200 winter fuel payment. The payments are being made between today and Christmas, which means that pensioners will have the money when the weather is starting to get cold, and will not have to worry about turning up the heating this winter.
What pensioners must realise is that, were the Tories to return to office, that £200 would be taken away. It is benefit-free and tax-free. However, 2.5 million people who either do not receive the pension or do not receive the full pension will lose out as a result of the Tories' policy.

Mr. David Willetts: We will put it on the basic pension.

Mr. Darling: The House of Commons Library looked at the hon. Gentleman's figures, and said that the best he could claim was that pensioners would be 42p a week

better off. I am more than happy to stand by what we are doing, in contrast to what the Tories are promising to take away from pensioners.

Sir David Madel: Why are women who reached the age of 60 last month unable to receive the winter fuel allowance this winter?

Mr. Darling: Because, as with many other provisions, there has to be a qualifying date. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ensure that all the payments were made. There has always been a qualifying date; nothing has changed this year.

Gillian Merron: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new £200 winter fuel payment will be payable to men aged 60 to 64? Is he aware of the importance of his assurance to constituents of mine such as Mr. Hutchings, who has rightly campaigned for prompt payment of the benefit to those in his age group? There is no doubt that men aged 60 to 64 would lose out following the implementation of Tory plans to axe the benefit and replace it with absolutely nothing.

Mr. Darling:: My hon. Friend is right. We have received more than 1 million claims from men aged between 60 and 65; 990,000 have been met, while about 3 per cent. have yet to be processed but will be met shortly.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) shouted that men aged between 60 and 65 would receive the money in their pensions. They will not, because they are not retired. They will lose £200 as a result of the Tory policy.

Ageism

Mr. Paul Burstow: What contribution he made concerning age discrimination in his capacity as Minister with responsibility for older people to the framing of the European Union directive on discrimination in employment. [136112]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have worked closely with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment throughout negotiations on the EU directive to ensure that the final text provides a clear and workable foundation on which all member states can base their legislation.

Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister confirm that the Government backed a six-year delay in implementation of the age discrimination aspects of the directive? Does he agree that it is very much a case of cold comfort for 50-year-olds who face discrimination now to be told that they must wait until they are 56? Will the Minister and his colleagues take steps towards legislating to implement the measures that are necessary to protect people from age discrimination now, rather than waiting for another six years?

Mr. Rooker: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, but I remind him that the European directive is not just about age discrimination. In any event, measures could not be introduced overnight.
The directive affects discrimination on the grounds of disability, age, religion or belief, and sexual orientation, so implementation will have a significant impact on the UK and other member states. We have allowed six years to consult on the implications of the directive and introduce it. Before the hon. Gentleman does down this country, I might add that the only countries in Europe that are ahead of the UK in employing over-50s are Sweden, Denmark and Portugal. We are therefore the fourth biggest employer of over-50s in the European Union.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that one group suffers a triple discrimination—namely, older people who are disabled and on social security? In the context of the new European initiatives, will he look at speeding things up to try and ensure that there is no inbuilt discrimination within the system, as referred to in last week's statement? That would enable any changes in policy to be introduced quickly instead of waiting for the European directive.

Mr. Rooker: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. First, six years is allowed to do everything in the directive, but much can be done in less than six years. Secondly, regarding age discrimination in employment, as opposed to other aspects that I have talked about, we have introduced a voluntary code of practice. We want that to work and will meet employers tomorrow and listen to the issues that they want to raise. We have already said that if the code does not work, we shall take other measures, as we are not going to let the idea wither. We are attempting a voluntary approach to start with, but if that fails, we shall look at other approaches.

Mr. John Bercow: In anticipation of the possible—indeed, likely—passage of the directive, what review has the Department undertaken of its own employment practices?

Mr. Rooker: Tied in with the directive is the publication of "Winning the Generation Game" by the performance and innovation unit, which relates to older people right across the board. Departments must certainly look at ensuring that they set an example. It is no good Ministers telling industry to do certain things if we do not take action in our own Departments. My Department is taking a lead in allowing people to work beyond 60, and I want that to be extended across Government. Some Departments have yet to resolve certain issues—such as the Home Office, which must deal with a cut-off point that applies to some members of the prison service but not others.
We must justify our actions before forcing people to retire early. There must be good grounds for that, and we must not simply say, "This is how it has always been". That is not sufficient.

Fraud

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent assessment he has made of the amount of money fraudulently obtained from the benefits system since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [136113]

Mr. John Randall: If he will make a statement on the amount of benefit fraud since May 1997. [136122]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The estimated loss due to fraud is £2 billion per year. That figure refers to the fraud we know about. We have now increased the targets for reducing the amount of fraud and error in the system. We are aiming to reduce the losses from fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance—the two most vulnerable benefits—by 25 per cent. by March 2004, and by 50 per cent. by March 2006.

Mr. Robathan: Despite all the rhetoric, according to a study by the Department, which was revealed in The Sunday Times in May, the cost of fraud in benefit may be as high as £7 billion—although, according to the Public Accounts Committee, it is £4 billion. Will the Minister confirm that, under the Labour Government, successful prosecutions for housing benefit fraud have halved since May 1997? Will he also confirm that, according to figures that he released to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), there are about 20 million more insurance numbers than there are people in this country?

Mr. Rooker: May I deal with the last point first, as it is part of a myth? There are indeed more national insurance numbers on the system than people in this country, and a good example will suffice for hon. Members to understand why that is so. To pay a widow's pension based on her husband's contributions, we need to maintain the national insurance number for the deceased. We must also maintain numbers for people who leave the country, because we do not know whether they will come back. There is an extensive programme for managing the national insurance number system because, clearly, there can be problems with it. However, the system is not operated willy-nilly and it is not right to say that, because there are more numbers than people in the country, 20 million of them are open to fraud.
I dispute the point. What I said was: "fraud we know about". By definition, we cannot count the exact amount. There are estimates given—the hon. Gentleman has given the PAC's estimate, and the higher figure that appeared in a newspaper report this year—but may I explain? Changes that we have made in income support alone since 1997 will save £1 billion in this Parliament. One in three payments of income support was made in error when we came in, so we can save £1 billion.
There is now much more cross-checking than ever before of Department of Social Security records with other Government records—I have said it before at the Dispatch Box—for data-matching purposes, to find out where people are on the fiddle. So far, we have saved £150 million. We will soon cross-check benefit and tax records to flush out benefit cheats in the building industry.
We have continued the prosecution policy. There are some 200 prosecutions a week in respect of the Benefits Agency. I make a final point as an example. By March 2001, specialist identity checks will be introduced


nationally. Those have been piloted in the Balham area of London since June 1997. The pilot projects alone have led to more than 200 arrests.

Mr. Randall: How many initiatives does the Minister think his Department has launched to cut fraud since the Government came to power in 1997?

Mr. Rooker: I would not dream of counting them. The main one is to get a strategy for dealing with fraud—that is, to get the benefit right, paid to the right person and maintained properly in the system. If we do not do that, it gets out of control. Therefore, we have taken that strategic step.
All the other measures relate to a myriad different benefits, some means-tested, some contributory—we must still watch fraud on those—and others are neither; those include disability benefits. We must have action on that. We have strengthened the fraud investigator's powers. As time permits in the House, we will take steps at an early opportunity, for example, to introduce measures relating to those who have defrauded the Benefits Agency twice—two strikes and they are out of benefit.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not a generalised truth that rumour, hearsay and sometimes malice exaggerate the amount of fraud?

Mr. Rooker: The answer is yes, but we must accept that we pay in benefits a total of £2 billion a week—dozens of benefits to millions of people. For example, we issue 1 million order books a week. Our system is under attack by organised crime—organised criminals. I am not on about someone who is working and claiming, although I am not condoning that. I am on about organised crime.
We have measures to deal with that. There are attempts at multi-million pound scams on our benefit system, so we have to take steps. One of them, which has been suggested many times in the House as a step towards stopping that, will be the payment of benefits via credit transfer to stop fraud on instruments of payment: the benefit books, which are thieved, manipulated and changed so that the public are defrauded. So we must take the matter seriously; but we must also accept that there is rumour, and malice on the part of people who want to undermine the system.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Protection against fraud is extremely important—the Minister is right to point that out—but so too is common humanity. I have in my hand a letter to one of my constituents who was declared dead while living in a homeless persons hostel. His income support was stopped, his housing benefit was stopped and his community care resettlement grant was stopped. He was not dead, however. As a result of an anti-fraud protection measure, he now finds himself living in a council flat in my constituency without the benefit of his community care resettlement grant of only £285; and it cannot be reissued to him for a further six weeks.
Later this afternoon, I will contact the Department of Social Security in Newcastle upon Tyne about the matter. I hope that I have the Minister's support in saying that such an anti-fraud measure does not display common humanity and must be corrected.

Mr. Rooker: Clearly, a gross error has occurred. I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to wait to contact Newcastle, but will give me the information immediately after Question Time.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister of State has just said, to use his exact words, that he is concerned about stopping people "on the fiddle" in relation to benefits. He has also talked about the need to tackle organised crime, and for co-operation between various Departments and agencies. Can he therefore explain the extraordinary guidelines given to the Department's staff telling them not to supply information to police in cases involving car theft, muggings or burglary? Does he realise that the Department's guidelines suggest that those are minor crimes and that it is more important to protect customer records? Is he surprised, therefore, that Mr. Glen Smyth of the Police Federation has described the new guidelines as a "criminals' charter"?
The guidelines are not the best way to start an anti-fraud strategy—which, as we have already had 42 initiatives, must be the 43rd. Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the new guidelines and to issue instructions for them to be torn up?

Mr. Rooker: They are not new guidelines—they are exactly the same as those issued by the previous Government. Nothing has changed whatsoever, except that the Police Federation has an axe to grind. I do not know what number initiative we are on now—

Mr. Pickles: It is 43.

Mr. Rooker: Then let us have 44 initiatives. We are taking the issue so seriously that senior staff in my Department are being joined by the former head of investigations at Customs and Excise and by the former deputy director of MI5.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Are not some of the worst examples of benefit fraud committed by predatory private landlords who exploit some of the most vulnerable and poorest members of our society and milk the benefits system for all it is worth? What action is my right hon. Friend taking to improve the benefit system, so that not only is better housing provided, but fraud by those latter-day Rachman landlords is cut?

Mr. Rooker: We have—at the risk of adding to the number of initiatives—a verification framework to ensure that those who are claiming housing benefit are who they claim to be; that they have legitimate reasons for giving the address that they give; and that there is no collusion with landlords to fiddle the rent amount. We have also provided local authorities with remote access terminals so that they can cross-check with the Benefits Agency on the matters that have to be checked. We have also set up the Royal Mail "do not redirect" service, as a way of stopping giro drops. Although I know even from my own


constituency that there have been complaints about how those measures have slowed down claims, they are a way of cutting fraud.
Some landlords and other people are willing to exploit the system. Sometimes landlords collude with tenants. We have to take the action we can to get those people out of the system and to prosecute when possible.

Pension Funds

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will estimate the amount which a person retiring would need to have invested in a pension fund in order to be better off than a person retiring on the basic state pension. [136114]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Building on the basic state pension, people can contribute to the state second pension, or to an occupational, stakeholder or personal pension. Under the pension credit, no matter how much people save, they will be better off.

Mr. Brady: I note that the Secretary of State avoided answering the question and was not prepared to say how much someone needs to have in a pension fund to be better off. The accurate answer—as he will know if he has read the excellent briefing note prepared by the Conservative research department—is about £100,000. If he doubts that figure, he could provide his own.
People now know that they have to have a very significant sum in a pension fund to be better off than if they had saved nothing. That is why the savings ratio has declined by 70 per cent. since the Government have been in office. Cannot the Secretary of State understand the long-term damage that he is doing to people's long-term behaviour by discouraging savings and deterring people from making proper provision for their future?

Mr. Darling: I had of course looked at the Conservative party briefing, and the hon. Gentleman's question was all too predictable.

Mr. Brady: What is the right hon. Gentleman's figure?

Mr. Darling: I remind the hon. Gentleman what he asked: how much someone would have to save to be better off than someone retiring on the basic state pension. Everyone in this country who contributes gets the basic state pension. The point that I was making is that, under the system we have introduced, if someone saves a pound more than that, they will receive a credit for having done so.
On the savings ratio, the amount of money going into funded, personal and occupational pensions last year was £25 billion—the highest ever, and much higher than when the Conservatives were in office. The only reason for anyone to be concerned about the basic state pension is the prospect of the Tories getting in. The Tories are beginning the process of scrapping the basic state pension and want everyone under 30 to opt out of it. The hon. Gentleman is right; under the Tories, people would have to save because they would not have even the basic state

pension. I believe that a mix of basic state pension and second pension is the best way of making sure that people can retire on a secure and decent pension.

Ms Oona King: Does my right hon. Friend share my amazement that the only thing the Tory Front-Bench spokesmen could say last week about the proposals to reward pensioners who save—whether in a pension fund or otherwise—was that the proposals would put strain on the tax system? What about the strain on pensioners for all these years? Will he confirm that when the pension credit is introduced, a pensioner on the basic state pension who has saved and has an income of about £20 a week from those savings is likely to receive an extra credit of £12 a week as a reward for saving?

Mr. Darling: I do not know whether we should be amazed or not, but as far as I am aware, the Conservative party is the only organisation that is against the principle that someone who saves ought to be rewarded and not punished for it. The Conservatives have made that abundantly clear—not just today, but in their helpful briefing, which I am more than happy to circulate among my hon. Friends so that they can better see exactly what they are up against. The briefing makes it abundantly clear that the Conservatives are opposed to a credit which will mean that people with an income of under £135 will be better off if they save. Surely it must be right that the social security system rewards thrift and does not punish it.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider future pensioners? Is he aware that last week's pre-Budget statement will lead to a shortage of gilts in the market and hence a bad deal for people with defined contribution pension schemes? Is he aware that the delay on the Myners report until after the election, because it is too difficult, is a bad deal for people with occupational pension schemes? Is he further aware that the increase in the minimum income guarantee means that a man aged 45 will now have to save £50 to £55 a month in a stakeholder pension to do better than the minimum income guarantee? Does he agree that the Government have created a hat-trick of disincentives for future pensioners to save?

Mr. Darling: I am beginning to wonder whether Conservative party spokesmen have actually read the consultation paper on the credit, because the principle is clear—for every pound someone saves, they will get a cash reward. Under the system that the Tories want, people will be punished for saving. Under the present system, people who have too much money in the bank or who get a small occupational pension lose out. Under our proposals, 5.5 million pensioners will gain as a result of the credit. If those people vote Conservative, they will lose out.
On the Myners report, the hon. Lady must be aware that opinion as to what should be done in terms of the minimum funding requirement is divided. No clear view is emerging, other than the fact that the present system is not working. We are consulting at the moment, with a view to putting in place another reform: a review which is long overdue and to which the Conservative party has contributed not very much at all.

Pensioners

Mr. Ben Chapman: What measures he is taking to help pensioners on low incomes. [136115]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We plan significantly to increase the minimum income guarantee to £92.15 next year, rising to £100 the year after. In addition, the new pension credit will benefit 5.5 million pensioners on low and moderate earnings.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 3,000 pensioners in my constituency will enjoy a substantial boost to their incomes when the minimum income guarantee is increased in April next year? Does he agree that it is right and proper that we focus our attention first on those pensioners who need help most? Does he further agree that if we are not to return to the pensioner poverty that we inherited from the previous Government, we need to review the minimum income guarantee in future years?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Two structural reforms were necessary to the present pension system. One was to make sure that we got rid of pensioner poverty once and for all. The only way the pensioner poverty that grew up over the past 20 years can be eradicated—is to give far more than a prices—or indeed an earnings—link to the poorest pensioners, and we are doing that by some £20 a week
In addition, it was necessary to remove the fundamental flaw in the social security system that we inherited. Under the present system, if people save they are punished for it. Under the pension credit, some 5.5 million households will gain because of their thrift and foresight, and I think that most people will bear that in mind when they go to the polls, whenever the election is held.

Mr. David Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over the three years since 1997 the poorest pensioners have received an additional £24.35 a week—or will do eventually—compared with a starting point of £67.80, a sum accumulated over the entire history of pensions provision, including the 18 miserable years of the previous Government?

Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, during the course of this Parliament we will have done more for Britain's pensioners in five years than the Conservatives did in the 18 years they were in power. That is why I suspect that, when it comes to the election, the British people will look at what the Tories are planning. They want to take away the winter fuel payment of £200, the free television licences and the Christmas bonus, which are benefit-free and tax-free, and then try and con people into believing that they will be better off if those payments are given back to them. The fact is that some 2.5 million people will lose out from those measures; and when they look at the longer-term plans they will find it odd that the Conservative party is the only organisation in the country that wants to keep a rotten system under which people

who saved were punished for it. We want to ensure that 5.5 million people who have saved for their retirement are rewarded for their thrift.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree with Baroness Castle that Conservative pension plans which consolidate Labour's pension gimmicks and give the money back as a decent rise on the basic state pension are "an absolute vote winner"?

Mr. Darling: As I have told the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), when Conservatives pray in aid Lady Castle they are desperate indeed. The British people know that the Government have done more for pensioners in the past four years than the Conservative party did in the 18 years before that. I do not think that Lady Castle or anyone else is likely to support a party that is pledged to taking £200 off every pensioner household as well as taking away the free television licence for the over-75s and the Christmas bonus. People are in no doubt that if they vote for the Conservative party, in the long term they will lose out and be worse off.

Social Fund

Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the resources available to the social fund.[136116].

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): This year the discretionary social fund budget is based on £138 million of new money being paid into the fund. This, together with expected loan repayments of £458 million, provides a gross discretionary budget of £596 million.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. As she will be aware, it is the discretionary social fund to which poor people in desperate circumstances turn to buy a bed, some furniture, a cooker or other household essentials. What would be the effect on those people of a £90 million reduction in the funds available to the social fund, which I understand to be Conservative party policy?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to point out that this £90 million raid would decimate the fund. It would wipe out the entire grants budget, if that is where it was taken from, and hit the most vulnerable the hardest. In other words, it is a typical Tory policy.

Carers

Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to improve provision for carers. [136118]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We recently announced a broad package of measures to improve financial support for carers. We intend to increase the carer premium in the income-related benefits by £10 on top of inflation, to increase the earnings limit in invalid care allowance from the current £50 to the lower earnings limit—currently £67—to allow ICA to continue for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for,


and to allow claims for ICA to be made by people aged 65 and over. We will be seeking to introduce these changes as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Carers in my constituency will certainly be pleased that their valuable work is being recognised at last, but will he assure me and the House that carers will benefit from the increase in the carer premium and that it will not be clawed back in reduced housing benefit or council tax benefit?

Mr. Bayley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I, too, have heard carers welcome the changes. They were warmly welcomed at the annual general meeting of the Carers National Association. The chief executive of the association assured me that it gave him "great pleasure" to welcome the announcement last week, which would boost carers benefits. The measures provide a sensible balance between targeting support on those most in need and giving those who are able to work the opportunity to continue to do so. The changes will benefit 300,000 carers at a cost of about £500 million over three years.

Opposition Day

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]

London Underground (Public-Private Partnership)

[Relevant Documents: the Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98 on London Underground, HC715-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm4093; and the Fourteenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the Funding of London Underground, HC411, and the Government's Response thereto, Cm4877.]

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the Government amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you can delay the debate until the Secretary of State arrives, or if you have been made aware that yet again, the Secretary of State will not attend the debate. Can you advise us on what we have to do to get him to come to the House, participate in such debates and account for the actions of his Department? So far we have completely failed to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The important thing is that the right hon. Gentleman and I are here, so we can carry on.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order. Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order to make?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, I think that it should be drawn to your attention that, following the privatisation of British Rail in the 1990s and the disasters on today's rail network, many Members have great difficulty getting to the House of Commons. People are making all sorts of arrangements throughout the country to get to Parliament. Some of us have to get up at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning simply to get here. That is why some Members are not here.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the acute embarrassment caused to the Government during the weekend by the leaking of the detailed note of the Cabinet meeting in June 1997 regarding the millennium dome, have you received any request from the Prime Minister to come to the House and share his embarrassment with us?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I call Mr. Jenkin to move the motion.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
That this House notes the widespread concern about the viability of the Government's public private partnership proposed for London Underground; further notes that the Government has established Transport for London, which is answerable to Londoners, and whose Director, Mr. Robert Kiley, has a proven track record of modernising the New York subway system and who will take on responsibility for London Underground in due course; deplores the failure of Ministers to include Mr. Kiley and Transport for London in any meaningful consultations about the contracts under negotiation; condemns the Government's lack of openness with Londoners and their representatives about the bidding process; and urges the Government to work with Mr. Kiley and Transport for London with an open mind about what is best for London Underground and for Londoners.
Perhaps it is unusual that an Opposition motion does not blame the Government for a crisis but seeks to forestall one. The motion is not about Labour's poor track record on tube investment so far. We have debated that before, and I invite the Minister to leave aside that part of his speech and, as a courtesy to the House, to deal with the motion that we have tabled. The debate is not about the merits of one proposal for the tube over another. Nor is it even about whether the public-private partnership is a good or a bad thing.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: The motion is about how the Government are conducting themselves in relation to the elected representatives of Londoners and Transport for London—a body that the Government established. The motion is not about which scheme for the tube may be the best or worst option. It is about whether the Government are so blinded by their political prejudices against the Mayor of London—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in his place—who so humiliated them in the London elections that they are making themselves incapable of rational judgment.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman says that the motion is not about privatisation. Given that decisions on that matter will affect the future of the underground, why is it not about privatisation?

Mr. Jenkin: I am inviting the House to give its opinion on a motion about how the Government should conduct themselves in relation to Transport for London as regards the PPP, or whatever other scheme eventually goes ahead. The Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) chairs, has already passed judgment on these matters, describing the PPP as a "convoluted compromise", and I hope that she would welcome input from someone such as Mr. Kiley—input that we invite the Government to accept.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr.Jenkin: The Government are pursuing the London Underground PPP without proper consideration of the full range of alternatives and without proper consultation with Londoners and their representatives. They are acting


without any semblance of objectivity or accountability. To cap it all, the driving force behind the scheme, and the man more closely identified with the PPP than any other Minister, will not come to the House of Commons to discuss it.
I have great affection for the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and it is always a pleasure to tangle with him on the Floor of the House or in Committee. I must say, however, with the greatest of respect for him, that he is not the driving force behind the policy. He is not the dominant influence at the Department. He is not the organ grinder—although my respect and affection for him prevent me from continuing with that metaphor.
The failure of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to appear at the Dispatch Box is not just a snub to the House of Commons; it is a snub to the British people, to Londoners and to their elected representatives. Why is he not here? Where is he? Despite the point of order raised a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I do not think that the Secretary of State has had any difficulty reaching his office today, and it is a few hundred yards from this place. He could easily be here.
The botched privatisation of the tube is the Secretary of State's baby. He is the Minister forcing the scheme on Londoners. He keeps insisting that the PPP is right. He wrote to the Evening Standard last week to say:
The PPP is the only realistic way in which the long-term investment that the Tube requires can be levered in quickly and efficiently.
As I shall demonstrate later, that is absolute rubbish. If, however, the Secretary of State has the time to write letters defending his policy to the Evening Standard, and to tangle with its editor and with Mr. Simon Jenkins, who writes for it, why does he not have the courage to explain himself to the people's representatives in Parliament?
I telephoned the right hon. Gentleman's office before the debate, and was informed that he had chosen to delegate this debate to his junior Minister. What a ludicrous situation.
If I raised my eyes towards the camera, I should probably be looking at the Secretary of State from the television screen in his office—but he cannot be bothered to come to the House to explain his policies. The man responsible for the policy will not debate it in the proper place and in the proper way.
This is not the first time that the Deputy Prime Minister has ducked the challenge of the House. Ten days ago he declined to show up for a debate on the September fuel crisis, when my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) challenged him about a major plank of Government policy. The right hon. Gentleman ducked that challenge as he does this one. He will duck the challenge again on Wednesday when we debate the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services.
That is odd, because only a fortnight ago, he told the House that
I am constantly available to discuss such matters either in statements or other debates … There are many matters that I am prepared to debate, and I commonly come to the House.[Official Report,24 October 2000; Vol. 355. c. 150.]

Where is the right hon. Gentleman commonly now? That simpering protestation says it all. The Deputy Prime Minister has lost his grip on the policy issues; he has lost his nerve, and it will only be a matter of time before he loses his office, his salary, his grace-and-favour houses, his red boxes and his chauffeur-driven Jaguar.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: May I turn the question back to the hon. Gentleman? Is the reason why the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) does not lead debates for the Opposition on railway-related matters that, as a non-executive director of Railtrack from the day that it was privatised until the past 12 months, he is culpable for most of the disasters on the railways?

Mr. Jenkin: That type of desperate intervention does more to discredit the Government's position than anything else.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Deputy Prime Minister's failure to turn up shows a wider failure of the Government, in that at business questions, I asked the Leader of the House to tell the right hon. Gentleman how imperative it was that he should exercise his responsibility as Secretary of State by attending the House for this debate. The right hon. Lady is in dereliction of her duty by not ensuring that the House is addressed by the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. That point shows that the Government—and especially the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—are constantly running for cover.
I shall deal with the key elements of our motion, as I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will address the motion rather than the Prime Minister's amendment, which is a distraction from the issues that we want to raise.
There are widespread concerns about the public-private partnership—first, over value for money. The Industrial Society has produced a report, under the executive chairmanship of Will Hutton. He is no great friend of the Conservative party—rather, he is a new Labour guru—nor does he appear to be a friend of the PPP. Yet on value for money, the report states:
It became clearer to us while gathering and assessing evidence that much of the anticipated efficiency gains are just that: probable rather than certain expectations … The issue is whether this initial step-change in improvement is value for money … We think there are good reasons to believe that the PPP, as currently structured, overly favours the Infracos—
that is, the infrastructure companies—
in terms of the distribution of risk and reward … The Infracos have an incentive to "hold up" important investment until they get paid more … The PPP proponents claim that they have designed contracts to take into account all these problems, which can be surmounted if there is genuine partnership. But that is to ignore the lessons of both theory and practice.
What about the value-for-money aspects raised by Chantrey Vellacot DFK? Maurice Fitzpatrick, its head of economics, concludes:
The Government needs to rethink its strategy. If it does not, it will never be able to persuade taxpayers that PPP represents best value for money … we have published figures suggesting that the additional cost of PPP (as compared to purchasing the assets directly) is equivalent to a 30 per cent. hike in fares.


Why is the Secretary of State not here to debate that point?
There has also been a failure to assess alternatives to the PPP. We are constantly given the refrain from a previous era that there is no alternative—an unlikely phrase from a member of the present Government. However, the Hutton report points out:
The range of possibilities in theory extends from wholesale privatisation of LUL under a regulator to retention of the Underground in public ownership as an integrated system but offering it an autonomous capacity to finance itself by issuing its own bonds.
There are many options and the report adds that the only constraint on them is the
Government's manifesto commitment to retain a publicly owned and publicly accountable Underground system.
Professor Stephen Glaister points out that alternatives exist even given that constraint, which we reject. He has written:
There are two alternatives to PPP. One is to simply keep the tube under the direct control of central government. This could have been accepted without more ado from the beginning. A much more sensible alternative would be to pass it to the mayor and leave him to decide how to pay for investment.
There are plenty of alternatives that the Government have failed to assess.
Complexity and fragmentation have already caused concern.

Mr. Geraint Davies: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall finally give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he has much original to say, but it will be fun to listen to it.

Mr. Davies: In running through the apparently logical options for management and corporate governance that are available to the Government, the hon. Gentleman has not once mentioned privatisation as a conceivable option. Is that the level of conviction that Conservative Members now have about privatisation? Because of the failure of privatisation, he does not even mention it.

Mr. Jenkin: The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports have gone in for a fair amount of privatisation, and the PPP is a form of botched privatisation. We have assessed every case for privatisation on its merits and against all the alternatives, and we have not rejected it in this instance. We keep an open mind. It is the Government's failure to keep an open mind on their PPP that is forcing them into terrible mistakes.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the privatisation of Railtrack has been a success?

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorely tempted to embark on a debate about the privatisation of Railtrack—but you, Mr. Speaker, might suggest that that is not a subject for today's debate. However, if the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Government's business managers to hold a debate about the railways, we shall be delighted, because we think that this Government have a rotten record.

Complexity and fragmentation have caused concern, and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs has already called the PPP a convoluted compromise. Mr. Bob Kiley also has doubts whether the PPP will work. He says:
It could prove a physical or human impossibility on a system that is a much more intensive operation than a national railway, with trains every 90 seconds.
Perhaps Ministers should listen to his argument.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the merits of his case, Members will do well to take the debate on the PPP seriously? If the Government call it wrong on the PPP, they will pay the price in the forthcoming general election in a swathe of marginals across London.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I run through the issues, the only case that I seek to make is that there is widespread concern about the PPP. I make no more claim than that. The Government have their head in the sand if they think that they have all the answers.
On safety, I refer the Minister to the letter that was leaked from the Health and Safety Executive and reported in The Guardian earlier this year. The headline was "'Safety at risk' in tube sell-off: Leaked memo reveals rail watchdog's concern". The report gave details of safety hazards with potentially serious consequences which had been uncovered in the Deputy Prime Minister's plans partially to privatise the London underground.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
The leaked letter in The Guardian was from the principal rail safety inspector, Stanley Hart, who warned of
a "growing concern" about safety in the partly sold-off tube system that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to bring in next spring.
It is incumbent on the Government to share their views about the safety issues that have been raised, not least with Transport for London and Mr. Bob Kiley.
Safety was also raised in the Hutton report. It referred to the leaked letter and
particular problems thrown up during the shadow running of the PPP.
It recommended that the HSE should
invite all interested parties to submit their specific concerns about the PPP's safety regimes. These concerns should form part of the HSE's assessment criteria of the safety regime.
Has that been done? If so, has it been done in consultation with Transport for London, which will ultimately have responsibility for supervising safety on the privatised London underground? I should add that the Government do, of course, take the advice of the HSE on such matters, as did the previous Government during privatisation of the railways.
The Government have established the London Mayor, the Greater London Assembly and Transport for London to take responsibility for such issues. The real consideration is that whatever the Government choose


to do, they will pass responsibility for the consequences of their decisions on to Transport for London. As the Hutton report said:
It will be the London government which will be ultimately responsible for any system failures, accidents and financial shortfalls—even though it did not negotiate the contracts or initiate the new structure.
How can the Government proceed without consulting London's government in any way?
Then there is Mr. Robert Kiley himself. He has exactly the track record and experience that any Minister should be gasping for. I am reminded of when we brought a controversial gentleman over from an American firm to run British Steel on a high salary. He went on to run British Coal. That is the influx of fresh thinking and expertise—at considerable cost—that the London Mayor is entirely right to entice to this country.
Mr. Kiley is credited with having revived the New York underground system. As chairman of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, he rebuilt the infrastructure of the New York subway and reorganised its management. Mr. Kiley will principally take on responsibility for the operation of the PPP. As Simon Jenkins pointed out in the Evening Standard,
no sooner does Mr. Kiley arrive in his office than he is stripped of responsibility for stations, track, signals, carriages, tunnels and escalators. All he can do is sell tickets and drive trains … This is quite unlike Mr. Kiley's experience in Boston or New York.
Mr. Kiley himself is mystified by the PPP. He told the Evening Standard on 6 November:
I have been trying to figure it out for about five weeks now and still haven't managed it. I have a rule that anything that takes that long to understand is not going to work.
Perhaps that is why Ministers are reluctant to share their secrets with Mr. Kiley: they fear an alternative point of view.
The negotiations are being conducted in an atmosphere of cloak-and-dagger secrecy, for no reason other than the Government's political convenience. The Government are on the defensive. The Deputy Prime Minister is deeply insecure about the strength of his arguments, and his judgment has become severely clouded by political considerations. We know that he has fallen out with the hon. Member for Brent, East. Personal animosities appear to be taking precedence over the interests of Londoners.
Then there is the question of how the Government will go forward. A future Conservative Government would certainly seek to work constructively with Mr. Kiley. We have our own proposals for the London underground—[Interruption.] If the Minister wants to spend this debate discussing our proposals, he would be missing the point that many of his hon. Friends will be seeking to raise with him. The Government have varying proposals; there are plenty of others out there. We will seek a constructive dialogue with Transport for London about the future of the tube because that is the only common-sense option open to any Government now that that body has been established.
This should not be about personalities, playing politics or settling old scores. It should be about what is best for London and Londoners. The motion urges the Government to put London first. I therefore commend it to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's implementation of its manifesto commitment to create a Public Private Partnership for London Underground which will bring in £8 billion of new investment and up to £5 billion worth of maintenance over the next fifteen years—leading to faster, more reliable journeys and a safer, more attractive Underground of the kind Londoners deserve; supports the doubling of the resources available to the Mayor for transport in London over the next three years; condemns the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport and in particular their erratic investment in London Underground, which left it with a £1.2 billion backlog; and deplores the Official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground, which will fundamentally undermine public accountability.
Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I should say that I listened patiently, as is my nature, to the fulminations of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister from the debate. May I modestly—as is also my nature—remind the hon. Gentleman that I am the Minister for London. Indeed, I am the Minister for transport in London. In the many bouts in which the hon. Gentleman and I have engaged in this Chamber, he has so far failed to land even a glancing blow. I suggest that he needs to prove himself at bantamweight before he risks moving up the boxing league table.

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly grant the hon. Gentleman that he is a harder target than the Deputy Prime Minister, which might be why the right hon. Gentleman is not present today.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman may say that; I couldn't possibly comment.
I am delighted that this debate is taking place. I especially welcome the opportunity to contrast the Government's plans to bring in investment to modernise the tube with the flawed proposals for the railways that were implemented by the Opposition, which we are doing so much to put right, and with their equally flawed privatisation plans for the underground.
The Opposition's motion calls on the Government to have an "open mind" on the tube. That is a little rich coming from an Opposition whose mind is so closed that they still intend to repeat the mistakes of railway privatisation—not, I am bound to say, that they ever seem eager to let out that information. In September, the Conservative party published its policy statement "Believing in Britain". It was eight pages long but there was not a mention of the Conservatives' plans to sell off the tube, lock, stock and barrel. They may believe in Britain, but they obviously have no faith in their policy for the London underground.
Extraordinarily, the motion focuses on Robert Kiley, whom I understand the Mayor of London has appointed commissioner of transport for London. The motion begins by expressing concern about the viability of the public-private partnership, so I shall start by explaining not only why the PPP is needed and how we shall ensure that it is viable but why it is essential to bringing about the improvements to the tube that London so desperately needs.
When this Government came to power in 1997, the tube had suffered from year on year of Tory under-investment—including under the Greater London council—which had left it in a dilapidated state, with a massive backlog of investment. The Opposition's spending plans, which would have seen investment falling to £161 million last year and to zero this year, would have ensured that that backlog grew still further, resulting in an even greater decline in the service for long-suffering Londoners.
In March 1998, we announced an additional £365 million of funding for London Transport over and above existing plans. In July 1999, we announced that we were allocating £517 million of additional resources to London Transport over two years to help it deliver real improvements to passengers in the run-up to the PPP. In the Budget this year, we announced that a further £65 million would be allocated to London Underground in 2000–01, plus an additional £40 million to deal with claims on the Jubilee line extension.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: Let me make a little progress on the substance of my argument before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
It is clearly impossible to turn around decades of neglect overnight, but London Underground has been able to make some valuable improvements with the extra money. There have been track and tunnel upgrades on the Northern line and a 30 trains per hour service will begin on that line in January; station improvements have been carried out at Waterloo, Paddington, West Ham, Tottenham Hale and elsewhere; the gating of almost the whole network has been completed; new multi-fare ticket machines are being introduced; customer care staff have been introduced at key stations; and 24 kilometres of track have been replaced across the network, including the difficult crossover at Brixton, which was completed on time and to a very tight schedule.
Even before we took office, however, we knew that the extra money would not be enough to sort out the long-term structural financing problems of the tube. Even with the improvements, London Underground's entire investment was left at the mercy of the annual competition with other worthy causes for funds. We realised that that could not go on, which is why we said in our general election manifesto:
Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
That is the commitment that we are honouring.

Mr. Bercow: Given his enthusiastic trumpet-blowing, how does the Minister explain the fact that the number of regular tube users who regard the tube as poor value for money has more than doubled, from 32 per cent. last year to 65 per cent. this year?

Mr. Hill: It is because they are suffering from an inadequately invested system. The whole point of my argument is that we need sustained high levels of long-term investment in the tube system to make up for

decades of neglect and under-investment. Of course the system is creaking at the limits; that is the problem we seek to remedy through the public-private partnership.
Let me emphasise the differences between the PPP and the privatisation proposed by the Opposition. For a start, the PPP is based on fixed-term contracts, rather than permanent transfers to the private sector, so assets will return to the public sector after they have been upgraded. The PPP retains clear public sector accountability from the outset: it puts Transport for London in charge of the overall planning of the service and ensures that public sector London Underground retains the crucial statutory safety responsibility for the whole network. The Opposition are contemplating breaking up the tube into five groups of lines, then selling them off for ever. Under our proposal, private companies will maintain and upgrade the network for the period of the contract, but public sector London Underground will run the network—the whole network.
In stark contrast to railway privatisation, there will be no separation between train and track infrastructure maintenance. There will be no equivalent of Railtrack being responsible for track and signalling on the one hand and separate companies being responsible for trains on the other. For each tube line, there will be one company responsible for the maintenance of both trains and infrastructure. In other words, the PPP provides for precisely the sort of integration in maintenance that was so obviously absent in railway privatisation.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the same companies be responsible for employing drivers, setting timetables and ensuring the flow of income through ticket sales, or will those be the responsibility of a separate company? Would it not be sensible to opt for a totally vertically integrated system on the London underground, rather than a split between operations and infrastructure, as proposed under the PPP?

Mr. Hill: The companies will, in essence, be responsible for fulfilling contracts for the maintenance and modernisation of infrastructure and rolling stock. The travelling public will be comforted to know that every aspect of the London underground system with which they, as travellers, come into contact is in the hands of public sector London Underground Ltd. There will be no separation in responsibility for operating the system. There will be no equivalent of Railtrack operating the signals and a totally different company running the trains. London Underground will retain responsibility for all operational matters—from changing signals to driving trains to staffing stations—so it will be a much more unified system.
Of course, we will go ahead with the PPP only if it is demonstrably the best option. Specifically, that means that the PPP must pass two crucial tests.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and I must make progress. If he behaves himself, I will look upon him favourably in the future.
The first of the two crucial tests that the PPP must pass is on safety. As I said, the safety regime for the PPP retains a structure where primary statutory responsibility for the safety of the whole network remains with public sector London Underground.
While I am on the subject of safety, I take this opportunity to scotch the claim made by some hon. Members—we heard it in last week's debate—that the Industrial Society's report on the PPP claimed that our proposals might harm safety. Quite the reverse is the case. The report states:
The Review does not subscribe to the argument that the PPP structure is inherently unsafe and it recognises the special effort made by Government in ensuring that safety is managed centrally and rests ultimately in public sector hands.
On the specific point —

Mr. Tom Brake: rose—

Ms Abbott: rose—

Mr. Hill: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in a moment.
On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for North Essex about the response to the Industrial Society's recommendation that the Health and Safety Executive invite all parties to submit concerns about PPP safety, let me reassure him that the HSE is in discussion with London Underground about the best manner in which third parties' views can be sought.

Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: No. I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He said, quite correctly, that the statutory duty in relation to safety would remain with London Underground, but is he confident that London Underground will in practice have sufficient means to enforce sanctions in relation to safety? The ultimate sanction would be the removal of a contract. Does he think that it would ever be realistic for London Underground to do that?

Mr. Hill: Of course, my hon. Friend is right that that constitutes the ultimate sanction. However, the guiding hand on safety on the system at all times will remain that of London Underground, which will monitor safety and maintain close scrutiny of the activities of the infrastructure companies, or infracos. It will be perfectly possible for London Underground to step in and ensure that any necessary action to improve safety is carried out on the spot. As I shall go on to explain, there are clear incentives in the PPP contracts that we are establishing which will encourage not only active moves to improve safety on the part of the infracos, but proactive action on safety issues as part and parcel of the PPP structure.
I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake).

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way. It may be useful for him to know that on Friday I had a telephone conversation with Will Hutton of the Industrial Society, who confirmed that the PPP could jeopardise safety.
He said that if the Government implemented the safety measures that were needed to make PPP safe, it would not be value for money.

Mr. Hill: That is an interesting observation, which I take seriously, but it is not what appears in Mr. Will Hutton's Industrial Society report. Obviously, we must go with the expert judgment of the specialists whom he brought in to write the report. Although they demonstrated no complacency, they were certainly not as alarmist as the reported exchange that the hon. Gentleman presents to the House.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hill: Of course I shall give way to the Mayor.

Mr. Livingstone: As the Minister seems so enamoured of Will Hutton's report, will he give the House an undertaking to make in their entirety the changes to the PPP that Will Hutton recommended?

Mr. Hill: We are looking carefully at the contents of the Industrial Society report, as I shall go on to explain, and we co-operated fully with the society in its preparation. Officials in the Department have subsequently held discussions with the specialists who produced it, and we are responsive to all the many positive suggestions that it contains. It is a good report and I recommend that hon. Members read it—especially the hon. Member for North Essex, who palpably has not done so.

Mr. Jenkin: The Hutton report refers to particular safety problems thrown up during the shadow running of the PPP. It states:
These are important concerns, and arise directly from the new structure and the multiplicity of companies who will be working on the Underground.
I beg the Minister, lest hon. Members misunderstand him, to explain that the people who will manage the tracks and signals will be employed by different companies from those that employ the people driving the trains and operating the timetables. In that respect, the plans for the London underground involve the same horizontal fragmentation as those for the privatised railway. I was led to understand that the Government were unhappy about that.

Mr. Hill: Let me set out the views of the Health and Safety Executive on safety; after all, it is the authoritative and independent body for such matters. The hon. Member for North Essex spoke about management. Essentially, the infrastructure companies are responsible for carrying out long-term contracts for the maintenance and modernisation of the underground. To that extent, they are not responsible in any direct sense for the operation of the system, all of whose moving aspects lie in the hands of the public-sector London Underground under the PPP system. I do not know how often or in how many different ways I must explain that to the hon. Gentleman before it sinks in.
In order to ensure that safety is maintained and improved, both in the run-up to the PPP and also when it is under way, three sets of changes to London


Underground's safety case are required. Two of these revised safety cases have already been approved by the Health and Safety Executive and the third is in preparation.
The transition to the PPP requires the submission and acceptance of that third set of changes to the safety case. The Health and Safety Executive has been closely involved throughout the process. It stated:
HSE is content with the details of the proposed new structure. In particular, HSE believes that Opsco
—that is to say, the public sector operating company, London Underground—
and the Infracos will be incentivised to seek improvements in health and safety as well as maintaining current standards.
So the theory is sound, the principle is robust and it is already being put into practice.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As the Government have been considering the effect of an independent safety authority for overland railways, why are not they prepared to provide exactly such a division for underground railways? My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole population has genuine worries about the way in which the overground railways are run, precisely because their safety is not in the hands of an independent authority.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point and I dare say that it will be taken into account as we examine the matter in more detail. She is aware that we are considering these matters all the time, for the future structure. I think that the public are looking for the reassurance that the guiding hand—the overwhelming responsibility for safety in the proposed PPP structure—lies in the public sector with the public sector London Underground.
London Underground is preparing to satisfy the Health and Safety Executive that its practical arrangements meet the necessary standards before the PPP can go ahead. We have said several times that the PPP will not proceed unless and until the HSE has taken an independent view and has stated that it is satisfied with the revised safety case. We insist that the PPP must make a substantial contribution to improved safety. I see no harm in saying that again.
The second key test for the PPP is value for money. As the House will be aware, London Transport and its advisers have developed a public sector comparator against which the value for money of the PPP will be judged.
Usually, such comparators measure the value of bids against traditional, annualised public sector funding. In the case of the PPP, however, we are aware that some people think that there is a better way. They want to issue bonds. They conveniently forget that bonds are just another way of raising debt, and that he who raises the debt carries the risk. In other words, it will be the taxpayer who shoulders the financial risk of cost overruns.
Those who support the issuing of bonds ignore the fact that bonds would do nothing to bring management efficiencies to the system; that they would introduce a further delay in getting a financing regime in place—perhaps as much as two years—and, as the Industrial Society points out in its report, bonds would not be a realistic prospect without new powers to raise local taxes.

We do not believe that Londoners want more delay, and we do not think that they want to have new taxes levied on them to pay the bill if there is a major cost overrun. They may be fond of Ken, but they are not that fond.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am perplexed. Were the electors of London naive to believe that the Labour party was putting a costed and fully evaluated proposal to the electorate of London in its manifesto—that proposal being that "we would move very soon to a public-private partnership?" It now seems clear that the Government have doubts about the safety of the system and that they are also doubtful about cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Hill: I am used to bizarre interpretations and utterances from the hon. Gentleman as I stand at the Government Dispatch Box, but on this occasion I am bewildered. He has it absolutely wrong. I am attempting—obviously with no success when it comes to the hon. Gentleman—to demonstrate that we are proposing to submit both the proposed safety regime and the proposed best-value aspects of the PPP to independent arbiters. That is exactly what we are doing, and it is exactly what a responsible Government should be doing in all the circumstances.
We are not dogmatically opposed to bonds, and we would not want to ignore the views of advocates of bonds. So, in addition to testing for value against the usual public sector comparator, we shall also check the bids against raising debt through public sector bonds. We have published the methodology for this comparator, which is being independently audited.
Most importantly, in August, the National Audit Office—Parliament's own financial watchdog—announced that it would bring forward its scrutiny of the comparator so that it could report on it before contracts are signed. We welcome this step because it will help to ensure that the comparator represents a fair and rigorous test of the value for money of the PPP bids.
The hurdles that the PPP will have to cross—safety and value for money—are high ones, but ones which we are confident the PPP will overcome. It is those tests, and not political considerations, that will determine whether the PPP goes ahead. Make no mistake—the Government are committed to proceeding with the PPP, as long as the bidders come up with the goods. There is a safety test for the PPP, just as there is a value-for-money test, but there is no Mayor test.
As I have said, the PPP is a manifesto commitment. The legislation stated that central Government would remain in charge of the tube until the PPP was completed. The best thing that we can do for Londoners is to pass the tube on to the Mayor with a robust financing package already in place. In that legislation, we also included duties of consultation and co-operation so that the transition would be as smooth as possible. London Transport has followed those duties. It has provided the Mayor with copies of the contract, and has consulted him on changes to them. Above and beyond those duties, we and London Transport have supplied information to the Industrial Society for its review of the PPP.
Contrary to press reports, Mr. Kiley has been provided with material on the PPP, subject to a confidentiality agreement. He has copies of the invitations to tender, the up-to-date contracts and the share purchase agreements,


and he has also received the highly sensitive public sector comparator for the PPP. We are more than happy to co-operate with Mr. Kiley, and to supply him with further information, subject to our legal obligations on this point.
We have always made it clear that we must be careful about making available commercially confidential information relating to the bids themselves, which could risk damaging the public sector's position and prevent us from us achieving best value. Anyone who has ever taken part in commercial negotiations knows that one never shows one's hand to the other players while the game is in progress.

Mr. Jenkin: Do I take it that Mr. Kiley has been given the commercially sensitive information, and that he has been fully apprised of the state of the negotiations? After all, he will be responsible for managing these contracts when they are in place. That is the burden of our complaint. Has the Minister handed over that information?

Mr. Hill: I shall reiterate what I said a moment ago, as it obviously came as a bit of a shock to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Kiley has received copies of the up-to-date contracts.
This may be a unique occasion in parliamentary history. The Opposition have devoted their own precious parliamentary time to a motion whose essence is to demand that Ministers meet a named individual. The Opposition need only have asked to discover that I, and other Ministers, have already met Mr. Kiley and discussed with him the plans for the PPP. We did so with the full blessing and endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps the Opposition will now withdraw their motion. One can only assume that they have taken bandwagonitis to a new height. Let us be entirely clear: the Government have no problem with Robert Kiley or with anyone appointed as an employee of Transport for London by the Mayor. We welcome the appointment of a man with his track record.
The tube has been underfunded for far too long, and Londoners have suffered enough. Passengers do not want to wait longer for improvements to the tube, and I do not see why they should. I want rapid and sustained investment in the tube. The PPP will deliver that, and will give Londoners the improvements they deserve—a safer, cleaner and more efficient service.
In particular, over time, the PPP will upgrade trains, track and signalling across the network, starting with major overhauls of the Victoria, District and Piccadilly lines. It will make the tube much more reliable by incentivising the infrastructure companies to repair faults that cause delays and speed restrictions. Routine maintenance will not be neglected. The PPP contracts contain a robust asset management regime, which requires the private sector to improve any substandard assets, even if they do not have an immediate impact on safety or performance. That is very different from the national railway regime that we inherited from the Opposition.
Stations will also get marked improvements. The private sector will be required to modernise almost all tube stations in the first 10 years, and there will be a programme of improvements to reduce congestion and improve accessibility at stations. Already about 20 per cent. of the network is equipped with lifts and ramps for wheelchair access, and the PPP will increase that to almost 50 per cent.
The Mayor has made it clear that he agrees with those investment priorities. Indeed, his draft transport strategy, which is currently out for consultation, includes the improvements that we expect the PPP to deliver. We can see from his transport strategy that, while the Mayor may say that he does not like the PPP, he certainly likes the improvements that it will bring and the money that goes with it.
The London Underground PPP is well on course and set to deliver substantial improvements to the system soon. That contrasts with the official Opposition's plans to break the system up and sell it off, and with other proposals based on bond financing.
We have learned from the mistakes of the dogma-driven programme of the previous Administration. It is a pity that the Opposition have not. We are working hard to put right the mistakes made on the railways, and we have developed this innovative, custom-built solution for the tube. That is the right way forward, and that is why the House should reject the Opposition motion and support the Government's amendment.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome this opportunity for another Opposition debate so soon after the Liberal Democrat debate on privatisation and public-private partnerships.
The Conservative Opposition are obsessed with this admittedly very important issue. Some boxing analogies have already been drawn today, and I shall give another. The Conservatives resemble a punch-drunk boxer: they have received so many blows to the head in their attempt to defend their privatisation policies that all they can do is to get back into the ring for another pounding.
Londoners do not trust Tory policies on the tube. They remember the Tories' lethal legacy—outstanding repairs costing £1.2 billion—and the statement that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), then Secretary of State for Transport, made to the House that
we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground.—[Official Report, 13 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 10.]
They also remember the understatement of the year, which was made by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said:
We did not do enough for the tube—I would be the first to acknowledge that.—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 436.]
I am afraid that that statement does nothing to convince Londoners that the Conservatives have accepted responsibility for the state of the tube.
The Deputy Prime Minister may have snubbed Londoners today by not attending the debate, but the Tories' privatisation plans for London Underground would inflict the greatest outrage on Londoners. On the other hand, Londoners are not exactly queuing up for the solution offered by the Under-Secretary. They voted decisively against public-private partnership in the Greater London Authority elections. I want to focus almost exclusively on the safety implications of the PPP.
The Under-Secretary is a nice, jovial chap. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked me to be gentle with him today. I can picture myself buying


him a consolatory drink when his PPP plans go belly up. However, I am afraid to say that joviality is no substitute for straight answers to tough questions. Each debate on the PPP raises a host of questions, all of which, I am afraid to say, remain unanswered by the Under-Secretary.
Many questions were raised in the most recent debate, on 6 November, to which I hope another Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), will respond when he sums up. That would finally give us some answers. The first question involved the statement made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who said:
I say that the PPP will not proceed unless and until the HSE has taken an independent view and has stated that it is satisfied with the revised safety case.
That is all well and good, but when will that happen? When will we be told that the safety case is complete? A second question was raised by the Under-Secretary's statement that
London Transport and its advisers have been devising a public sector comparator against which the bids for the PPP will be judged.
Perhaps the other Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—or the Mayor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is in the Chamber, will say when that will happen. Finally, the hon. Member for Streatham, said that the National Audit Office
would bring its scrutiny of the comparator forward.
Much is happening, but there are no precise details about when the process will be completed.
Last week, the amendment that the hon. Gentleman moved to the Liberal Democrat motion stated that the Government "deplores" the previous Conservative Government's
incompetent privatisation of the railways which left the network fragmented.
I could not agree more. Will he therefore answer the question that he did not answer last week: how the Government can guarantee that a similar break-up of London Underground will not lead to an identical breakdown in communications? We did not hear an answer from the Minister last week; perhaps we shall hear one from him this week.
The biggest question of all is this: if the PPP fails the safety test, or the public sector comparator finds that it does not represent best value for money, what exactly is the Government's fallback position? The cash will run out in the next financial year, and we need an answer from the Minister.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has touched on the crux of the issue. The Government are now so politically committed to the PPP, and would suffer such loss of face if it did not proceed, that they cannot afford to allow it to fail against the public sector comparator, for political reasons. Nor can they afford to allow the Mayor to interfere with it. That is the danger of proceeding in the way in which the Government are proceeding.

Mr. Brake: I entirely agree, but I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Government would receive the support of the House if the public sector comparator revealed that the PPP was not the best option, and that there was a better option behind which Members and Londoners would unite.
I seek an apology from the Minister on the issue of safety. It need not be in writing; he could give it now. He has already raised the matter in relation to the Industrial Society report. In last week's debate I quoted from that report—or, more precisely, from the BBC's report on it—saying that the Government's plans for London Underground
represent "poor value for money" and could put … safety at risk.—[Official Report, 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 112.]
The Minister said that I should have read the whole report, and the other Minister, the hon Member for Sunderland, South, also challenged my interpretation.
As the Minister now knows, on Friday I took the trouble to contact Will Hutton, the chief executive of the Industrial Society, for whom the report was written. He confirmed my understanding: he said that the PPP could—I used the word "could" in last week's debate, and I am using it again now—jeopardise safety, unless the necessary safeguards were provided. He went on to say that providing them would be so expensive, with the PPP structure, that the PPP could no longer represent good value for money.
If the Minister would like to stand up and apologise for, perhaps, misunderstanding the point that I made last week, I would welcome it. He chooses not to; perhaps he will do it later, in writing.

Mr. Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the National Audit Office. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman accept the verdict of the NAO and the PAC when they have reached their conclusions—which may be in favour of bonds, or may be in favour of the PPP or, indeed, another option—or is he simply driven by ideology and dogma?

Mr. Brake: I do not think that I am driven by dogma. I shall be happy to look at the NAO report, and to take on board its findings; I only hope that the Minister will be in a position to do the same, and is not being driven by dogma to such an extent that the PPP is the only option that the Government are willing to adopt.
Concerns about the impact of the PPP on safety should not divert our attention from serious safety worries about the way in which the tube is operating now. Is the Minister aware, for instance, of what appears to be an increasing number of dangerous incidents involving overcrowding on London Underground platforms? I understand that both Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat member of the Greater London Assembly, and Lady Williams, who speaks for our party in another place, have been personally involved in some scary overcrowding incidents. Some 1,200 passengers have apparently been emptied on to an already nearly full platform when a train has stopped short of its destination. In addition, there are cancellations, station and escalator closures, signalling and equipment failures and poor staff morale. That feeling prevails in London Underground as a result, I am afraid, of the Mayor's indication that he would possibly sack, or threaten to sack, managers in the system. The term "managers" is general and several levels of management in London Underground are concerned about to whom the ruling applies. Does the Minister think that we have reached a point at which we should have an inquiry into the safety of the existing system, let alone into what will happen as a result of the PPP? The Minister


may be reluctant to answer safety questions—although I hope not—but perhaps he will answer other questions relating to the running of the PPP, if it is ever established.

Mrs. Dunwoody: There are real problems with London Underground concerning the number of people that it carries and the age of the rolling stock. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will emphasise the fact that London Underground maintains a high level of safety. Indeed, the level of safety on the underground is higher than that on the overground railway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that people using that overcrowded underground system are put at risk, because that is not in their interest.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and am happy to reassure her that I believe that London Underground runs a safe service compared with alternatives such as overland rail—which she mentioned—or travel by car. However, that does not mean that we should not consider whether there are now sufficient problems for an inquiry to look further into the safety of the system.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brake: No, I should like to make progress, as many other Members wish to speak in our debate. We have already asked the Minister what the fallback position is if the PPP failed. However, what is the fallback position if a contractor fails? Will the Minister confirm that the Mayor will be required to pay significant sums of compensation to contractors whose contracts are withdrawn because they have failed to deliver on their contracts? What impact will that have on his ability to pull the plug on contractors if they are not doing their job? If one of the three companies taking over the two sub-surface lines fails, who will be waiting in the wings? Is the Minister confident that those companies will have the financial clout to survive closures—for example, of the District or Circle lines—if major tunnelling works are required?

Mr. Livingstone: May I answer the hon. Gentleman's question about what would be done if it became obvious to Transport for London and the Mayor that one of the companies was failing to provide the required level of safety. Technically, in law, one could sack it or kick it off the contract. However, under the form of the contracts, TFL and the Mayor would have to pay the banks that funded the company the entire amount that was lent. The Mayor would have to raise between £1 billion and £3 billion to do that, so that option is not feasible, and we would be stuck with those firms for 30 years.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point shortly.
Finally, I am not about to make a link between the Government's PPP plans and the disaster in Austria. However, as there as not been any other opportunity, this is an appropriate point at which to ask the Minister whether he has had any discussions about tube safety since that tragedy. My researcher spoke to Colin Paton, a train guard present at the Ladbroke Grove train crash, who

has talked to London Underground about the lack of fire extinguishers on its trains. He was told that they were removed because of vandalism and were not considered necessary because tube trains are not flammable. I believe that the Austrian train was also considered to be non-flammable, so has the Minister thought that it might be appropriate to review very soon the existing arrangements on London Underground to be absolutely certain that the accident in Austria has no implications for the safety of the tube?
The Minister has been asked many questions both today and in previous debates about the PPP and safety. I hope that, this time, we will extract some answers from him. The Government can no longer hide behind studies, reviews and commercial confidentiality. Londoners need straight answers to difficult questions about the future of the tube. I have heard a Labour Member describe the Government's policy of building more than 100 incinerators as the poll tax with flames. The PPP for London Underground may be the Government's poll tax with wheels.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I suspect that I had better declare an interest, just to be on the safe side. As Mayor of London, I will inherit the contracts in the next year or so, if they go ahead, and the underground. I also have an interest as a Londoner who uses the underground every day.
Before people assume that my opposition to the proposal is on an ideological basis, look at the way in which I have conducted myself in my office in the past six months. At every stage, I have tried to do what is best for London, rather than take any particular ideological approach. As I have looked at the issue, the question has been: what is going to work? I have been guided by the thoughts of Chairman Deng Xiaoping, the revered former leader of Communist China, who had a wonderful little saying: "It does not matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mice."
When the PPP was first announced, I did not rush to condemn it, as anyone who reads the Hansard for that day will see. I looked to see whether it could be made to work. Clearly, no Mayor is in the position of being able to reject an £8 billion or £15 billion deal when that office's total budget through all the organisations under the Greater London Authority is just over £3 billion a year. However, since then, there have been four major independent academic studies: by the London school of economics, University College London, the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is close to the Government, and Will Hutton's Industrial Society. All have found serious flaws in the PPP proposals.
London Transport itself conducted an investigation of 15 possible ways of dealing with London Underground over the coming years. PPP was ranked as the 14th most desirable out of the 15. I hear talk about Mr. Kiley being given all that he has asked for, but that report, now several years old, containing no contractual or commercially sensitive information, is still being withheld from me, the elected members of the London Assembly and Mr. Robert Kiley. What on earth can be the reason for withholding that? I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will indicate that he will direct London Underground's existing management to make that available. I see no reason why it should not be available to hon. Members, who have an interest in the issue.


The problem with the PPP is splitting operational and infrastructural control. We are having the debate because Hatfield has brought home to us the tragic problems that arise when that happens. Gerald Corbett's comments do not need repeating.
The PPP will inflict a similar fragmentation on the tube. Control over operations and infrastructure will be split. That is accepted by the Government. When we talk about three consortiums and Transport for London—so four players—it does not sound as bad as the way in which British Rail was broken up into 150 units, but each of the consortiums will have to have a contract with Transport for London and the Mayor. Each will have to have contracts with its four or five component firms. Each of the four or five component firms will have contracts with each other.
Each of the consortiums and the firms within consortiums will have contracts across those consortiums because, in many areas, the track crosses; lines are not completely separate. Additionally, each of the consortiums' component firms will have contracts with their own subcontractors.
I estimate that, eventually, the number of different players involved in the contracts will be more than the 150 or 160 players who were involved in the break-up of British Rail. I foresee problems with that. If a cracked rail is found, for example, how will responsibility be pinned down between subcontractors, contractors and consortiums? When public safety is at stake, there has to be a clear and immediate line of responsibility. The loss of such responsibility will rumble on as a potential disaster.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned the leaked letter from the Health and Safety Executive which stated that, since the start of shadow running, it had lost confidence in London Underground's systems. Let us be clear that the structural break-up of the underground has already happened. Although the underground remains within the public sector, shadow running started in September 1999, and it was completed in April 2000. The underground has now been divided into the bite-size chunks that are necessary for the PPP to proceed.
Does anyone in London think that the underground is better now than it was one or two years ago? Everyone whom I speak to in London complains that the underground seems daily to be getting worse. Every 16 minutes, there is a breakdown on the system. Sometimes, almost one in six escalators is out of order. No one seriously believes that since the start of shadow running, which is the only test that ordinary members of the public will be able to apply, things have not deteriorated further. We have already broken up the management chain.
What did the Health and Safety Executive's letter say? It said that London Underground's senior management seemed to have lost control of the lines of communication on safety.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that the primary reason why the service is deteriorating is that ever more people are using the service and that necessary

investment levels are not being delivered? Is it not a matter more of need for greater investment, with more people using the system, than of structure?

Mr. Livingstone: I completely reject my hon. Friend's suggestion. I think that the management changes prefiguring PPP are exacerbating the problems of under-investment.
A quite sinister—although, I am sure, purely innocent—coincidence is that, on 1 November, Stanley Hart, the chief railway safety inspector and author of the leaked letter, was moved from his post, so that he will not be making the final recommendations. I regret that. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will bring him back. Confidence will be retained only if Stanley Hart signs off on the issue.
Mr. Kiley is no member of the Militant Tendency, but has a very interesting career path which started in the Central Intelligence Agency. He moved on successfully to the private sector and to running New York's and Boston's transport systems. More recently, he was effectively the managing director of New York's equivalent to London First and the London chamber of commerce.
On 20 October, we wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, asking that Mr. Kiley be given all the information on PPP. Mr. Kiley gave a clear undertaking, which I accept, that what he was given would remain confidential. I have not asked that anything that is passed to Mr. Kiley be passed to me.
Mr. Kiley had meetings with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and with the Minister for Transport, who indicated that information would be supplied. As of today, however, Mr. Kiley has not received all the information that he has requested, notably the bids from the PPP companies. He has also received no explanation of why those documents have been withheld. It is a ridiculous situation. The advice of a proven transport manager with a record of success is being offered free to the Government, but the Government are not seizing that advice.
I am specifically reiterating that Mr. Kiley wishes to see, at the earliest possible opportunity, the best and final offers from the consortiums that are due on 20 November. He would also like to see the current public sector comparator, because the copy that he has been given, which is confidential and not available to me, is dated March. By now, I suspect, it has been seriously amended. If that information is given to Mr. Kiley, I shall give a commitment to the House. If Mr. Kiley, having undertaken a full study of those documents, comes back to me and says, "This system will work", I will drop my opposition to PPP.
However, if Mr. Kiley—acknowledged to be the best mass-transit manager of modern times—says to the Government, "I do not think that this will work. There are safety implications, and financial problems for Londoners", will they accept his advice without reservation? He is a genuinely independent person, and I hope that the Government will make a clear commitment that the information that I have specified will rapidly be made available to him, and that they will be prepared to listen to the advice that he gives them.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: What is Mr. Kiley's status? Has he been hired to run


London Underground? Is that a short-term measure? Is he a consultant? What will happen if the Government do not accept his advice and go ahead with the PPP?

Mr. Livingstone: Mr. Kiley has been appointed commissioner for transport, the senior officer in the whole Transport for London mini-empire. He will be responsible for buses, the Public Carriage Office and the docklands light railway. As soon as the underground is transferred, he will become directly responsible for that as well. His contract has been agreed, and we expect him to sign it on his next visit, this Thursday. I have no doubt that he will sign it: he is desperately keen to be able to turn round transport in this city. Although we have had to pay him a considerable sum, it will be money well spent if he is able to achieve that.
Mr. Kiley is not a man who flounces away. He is a man who, having had the experience of managing vast projects, may well concentrate the minds of some of the infracos. They may have assumed that they would have to manage with some rather dull and unimaginative public transport official—like the sort of dullards who are currently negotiating the contracts. Given that those people have manifestly failed to run the underground, the idea that we should give them the power to negotiate those contracts with some of the sharpest lawyers on the face of the planet does not fill me with enthusiasm. I do not think that the consortiums are happy, having come up against someone who knows as much about these matters as they do. Perhaps they will not find such easy pickings as they had imagined.
We should also consider what the public think. I commissioned an opinion poll, the results of which I received this morning, to assist the Government in moving forward. It is interesting because it is no good simply asking questions about the tube. We asked for comparisons between the tube and the overland rail services. At the moment, 46 per cent. of Londoners are satisfied with the service on the underground, and 32 per cent. are dissatisfied, which, given all the problems, is a remarkable figure. On the overground, only 30 per cent. are satisfied, while 36 per cent. are dissatisfied. Anything that moves the management of the underground towards the management of the overground system is not something about which Londoners should be optimistic.
I asked the polling organisation to ask what Londoners would expect if the PPP went ahead. Nineteen per cent. expected safety to improve, while 42 per cent. expected it to worsen. Sixteen per cent. expected to get value for money, but 47 per cent. did not and expected the system to get worse.
The Government have not managed to persuade Londoners—whose underground it is, and who have paid for it over the best part of a century—of their case; nor have they persuaded their own supporters. The Greater London Labour party bi-annual conference met last weekend. It was not a conference dominated by my old friends. As the Evening Standard defined it, the Blairite candidate for chair won by 60 per cent. over the pro-Livingstone candidate, who got 40 per cent. So this was a conference under control, except when it discussed the public-private partnership. A motion that in the light of Hatfield, the Government should withdraw the PPP was

carried so overwhelmingly that a card vote was not required. So not only have the Government not persuaded Londoners, they have not persuaded their own supporters.
The Prime Minister has often said that we should not fight the battles of the past. Why are we now facing PPP? The Government came to office with two immediate problems. The management of the underground was pretty dire—which is why we are looking forward to a clean-out as soon as I get my hands on it—and the problem of under-investment, for which the Conservative party must take responsibility, had become acute. Yet the Government had bound themselves by a promise to observe the outgoing Government's public spending limits.
The Government set out to find a revenue stream and to bring in good management. The problem now is not a failure to find a revenue stream—it is that the Treasury cannot spend the money quickly enough before the general election. Equally, the problem of management is resolved. I have resolved it by bringing in Bob Kiley, who I think will cut through the dead wood of London Underground's senior management like a scythe going through butter.

Mr. Brake: Could the hon. Gentleman be a little more precise about how much dead wood in the organisation he means? It is causing concern among London Underground staff.

Mr. Livingstone: I consider that there will be substantial and extensive change. We will look to promote those people who have some enthusiasm, but an awful lot of people have been ground down by years of failure. I am talking about changing not one or two people in senior management but dozens, and I regret that it has not been done before.
As I said, I did not automatically reject PPP at first. I focused on it massively in virtually everything that I did in the election campaign. Since I have been elected Mayor, it is the single biggest problem on my desk. I am honestly not persuaded that the system is safer. I genuinely fear that right hon. and hon. Members may be hearing a statement in two, three or four years' time about a major loss of life on the underground because of this system. Labour Members will not be able to blame such a disaster on the previous Government or on anyone else. This proposal is this Government's creation. Nobody else will be at fault. I beg my colleagues: is this a risk they want to take?
We already know that the Liberal Democrats will be standing at the election next May—if it is May—saying, "Liberal Democrats against tube privatisation." The contracts have slipped so that the earliest they can be signed is April. This will be a live election issue. We have not persuaded Londoners; we have not persuaded our own activists. I beg the Government to step back. Here is the face-saving way out—to offer Bob Kiley all the information that he has asked for and then accept his advice, as I have undertaken to do here today.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In the nature of things, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I have followed each other in London debates in the Chamber on a number


of occasions over the past six years. This is one of those occasions when I wish that I had spoken first and he had spoken second, because he is a hard act to follow. However, it is a privilege to speak in the debate immediately after him. I was not expecting to speak in the debate, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Like all Tories, I know that we live in an imperfect world, and therefore the unexpected happens periodically.
I shall vote at 7 o'clock on the motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), but I hope that those winding up the debate will excuse me if, like Mr. Speaker, I am at that stage hauling myself into fancy dress to attend the Lord Mayor's banquet.

Mr. Livingstone: I too apologise to the House. I do not wish to snub the new Lord Mayor, and will also miss the winding-up speeches for the same reason.

Mr. Brooke: As ever, the Mayor and I march in unison.
I was entertained to hear the Minister open his speech by saying that he was raring to go and was extremely glad that we had tabled this motion. This is the fourth debate on the London underground that has taken place in Opposition time in this Parliament, but we have yet to debate it in Government time. That does not suggest a Government marching towards the sound of guns.
The Minister will excuse me for reminding him that I wrote to him last week about the correspondence between us on the London underground in which I drew attention to the fact that I had been waiting for a reply for four months and had already reminded him after two. He need not be upset; I have not delivered the Exocet of putting that matter on to the Order Paper, but I look forward to receiving his reply in due course.
Labour Members in London outnumber Tory Members by five to one, but Back-Bench attendance was five to four a moment ago; it has now gone back to being even steven. Earlier in the debate, Labour Members were in the minority—that looks like London Labour Back Benchers distancing themselves from a rocky policy.
I enjoyed inferring from the Minister's speech the notion that the Deputy Prime Minister can understand the Government's plan for the underground—he is not here to enable us to test that—whereas Mr. Kiley, who has experience of running large-scale municipal railroads, has, given the testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, acknowledged that he cannot understand it.
I was much struck by the information, cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and reinforced by the Mayor, that the number of passengers not satisfied by the tube's value for money has doubled in the past year from 32 to 65 per cent. That 33 percentage point increase represents one passenger in three. I am such a passenger, and there are more underground stations in my constituency than in the rest of Greater London.
Before I explain the reason why I take that view, let me pay tribute to the Jubilee line extension—not only north-south, but east-west. Travelling to the west end, especially to Piccadilly, from Westminster has been transformed by the Jubilee line, but those who travel east-west, even those dwelling north of the river,

have gained from the link on the East London line between Canada Water and Wapping. It is now much easier to go east than it used to be.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Jubilee line had been a PPP, the £1 billion or so extra cost of building it and the extra cost of more than a year's delay would have been borne by the private sector through risk transfer? With hindsight, does he not think that the Jubilee line would be better off as a PPP, rather than under the traditional method adopted by the Tories?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that that would always depend on the contract. However, the fact that we have waited so long for the Government to come round does not comfort me that everything will move smoothly thereafter.
The changes involving the Jubilee line are to London Underground's credit, and I am delighted that the Jubilee line's east London stations have won so many architectural prizes.
I do not know how often the Minister travels by underground, but I travel at all times of the day and night. The phrase "rush hour" was first used in London in the 1890s, and, for 100 years, it was what it started out as—namely, a single hour, morning and night—but it now goes on all day, as I am sure all my hon. Friends who travel during the day will testify. What are the symptoms? The first symptom is the number of times people arrive on a platform in mid-afternoon or mid-morning—or last Friday at Victoria at 6 o'clock in the evening—and no trains at all are signalled for the next 10 minutes.
The second symptom is the ominous public announcement on the loudhailer that, on lines that bifurcate, passengers are advised to take the next train wherever it is going and then change trains later. The third symptom follows, as night follows day: the platform is full to overflowing and everyone on the platform seeks to get on the train when it arrives, instead of only half the passengers who are waiting.
There used to be a sad sign on continental trains saying that goods vans would take 40 people or eight horses. Perforce, and again at all times of the day, the management of London Underground, under the auspices of the Government, give the impression that they are trying to squeeze not eight, not 10, but 12 horses into an underground carriage.
By chance, two and a half weeks ago, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick)—who has just left the Chamber—and I coincided at Tower Hill station at three o'clock in the afternoon. Everything that I have just described applied. No trains were foreshadowed. A sizeable crowd was already on the platform. As we waited, the hon. Gentleman and I grinned at each other, with the dyed-in-the-wool irony of dyed-in-the-wool Londoners. The black hole of Calcutta is not a racist analogy; those imprisoned there during the mutiny were largely, if not entirely, white. By the time a train eventually left Tower Hill that afternoon, with the hon. Gentleman and me on board, conditions resembled those of the Calcuttan analogy. We were absolutely packed in.
The hon. Gentleman and I went on grinning at each other, but I shall derive no satisfaction at the general election if we win London seats from Labour simply because of what the Government have put Londoners through on the underground.

Mr. Brake: Given what the right hon. Gentleman has just described, does he share my concerns about safety?

Mr. Brooke: I am happy to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, although I must admit that when the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town and I stood in the black hole of Calcutta at Tower Hill at 3 pm the other day, both he and I were, I suspect, more preoccupied with our immediate personal discomfort than with larger issues of safety.
The Minister puts down my dissatisfaction to historic under-investment. I acknowledge that, and we have debated the issue previously. Under-investment is not wholly the responsibility of a single party. Londoners, however, put their dissatisfaction down to the absurd theological debate that has gone on within the governing party while the service has steadily gone on deteriorating.

Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend the Minister said that he believed that the Government had learned from the mistakes of previous Administrations. Sadly, I do not believe that that is the case. In going forward blindly on the public-private partnership, my own Government appear to be making the same mistake as the previous Administration by sacrificing the interests of the travelling public to doctrinaire ideas.
Of all issues facing Londoners, public transport is the most important, pressing and vital. Public transport is not just of concern to those, like me, who use it every day. It is of equal concern to professional drivers, including taxi and van drivers. Some of the most passionate supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in his quest to become Mayor of London were cab drivers who remembered the old Greater London council. Contrary to what the Minister implied, those drivers remember that public transport was better under the GLC and that there was less congestion on the roads, which made it easier for professional drivers to make a living. Public transport not only concerns unfortunate commuters, but is of interest to professional drivers, drivers in general, businesses and the City.
No one doubts that the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East to the PPP enabled him to amass so much support in London in the contest to be Mayor.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not wish to intrude too far, but I recall that the official Labour candidate began to put caveats on his own support for the PPP as he tried to recover his position in the run-up to that election.

Ms Abbott: I do not want to go there. Frank Dobson was a nice man who did not deserve what happened to him in that campaign.

Mr. Wilkinson: He is still a right hon. Member.

Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is a nice man who did not deserve what happened to him in the course of that campaign. I do not want to dwell on that.
Transport is the key issue for Londoners and lay at the heart of the mayoral campaign. If Ministers who lived through that campaign and saw that the people's votes went overwhelmingly to candidates and parties opposed to the PPP are prepared to dismiss the opinions of Londoners, they should not be surprised if Londoners are sceptical when the Labour party wants them to return to the polls in the forthcoming general election.
Colleagues have talked about past Conservative Governments and what they did to British Rail. It is tempting to dwell on the past, but I want to talk about the future of London Transport.
The Minister referred to the need for investment; we can all agree about that. He talked of the need to introduce greater management efficiency; we can all agree on that. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East headhunted the world's best public transit manager to run Transport for London. That is why my hon. Friend proposed sacking not one or two but dozens of London Underground managers. I point out to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that nothing would be more likely to make my hon. Friend even more popular with Londoners than success in clearing out the dead wood in the management of the underground.
This morning, I travelled to Westminster on the Victoria line and hit one of the 15-minute breakdowns to which reference has been made. The fact that my hon. Friend is willing to take effective action against a management that has repeatedly failed is much to his credit. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will get nowhere trying to make points about that.

Mr. Brake: The only point I was making is that it is perhaps not best management practice to announce the sacking of an unspecified number of managers.

Ms Abbott: Everybody knows that the management of London Transport has failed and is failing. Everybody wants something to be done about that. If the Mayor says that he intends to act, that offers the clearest possible signal to the travelling public. My hon. Friend's statement was welcomed by the majority of Londoners.
There is agreement on both sides of the House on the need for investment. The Government and the Mayor are certainly agreed on the need for management efficiencies. However, we have not received a satisfactory response from Ministers to the questions on safety put by Members on both sides of the House. As I pointed out earlier, it is all very well to state that responsibility for safety will lie with London Underground, but the Minister has not explained how, in practice, LU will have the sanctions to enforce its safety objectives. Although the ultimate weapon available to the company would be to pull out of a contract, in practice—because of its responsibility for financial matters—such a course would be unrealistic. Of course, the contractors will be aware of that.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who opened the debate, has responsibility for London, so he will know how many London boroughs are entangled with the contractors that have taken on privatised services, such as housing benefit. The boroughs would like to take back the contracts, but in practice they cannot do so. Although the sanctions of the market are supposed to operate, they do not; for example, ITnet is messing up housing benefit all over London. Councillors in Islington, Hackney and Hounslow say that, in practice, they cannot pull out of the contracts. What sort of sanction does that provide?
London Underground will find itself in the same position as Railtrack in relation to private contractors. The responsibility for safety will lie with London Underground and although the ability to withdraw the contract may exist in theory, it will not be possible to put it into practice. The Mayor and London Underground will thus find themselves locked into contracts for 30 years.
The PPP proposal was fought to a standstill during the mayoral campaign. Londoners made their views clear on the matter. Every opinion poll commissioned on the subject reveals that Londoners are against the PPP. According to the most recent poll, cited in the House this afternoon, Londoners think that safety will be worse under the PPP. Londoners do not want the PPP. The London Labour party does not want it.
In an internal report produced in 1997, London Underground examined all the available options for obtaining adequate funding. The first was to retain LU as a unified system within the public sector—my preference. The second was to keep it as a unified system in the private sector—the preference of the Opposition. However, the 14th option was the one adopted by the Government. In the face of consistent public opposition and opposition from within the Labour party and in the face of the serious questions about safety that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, it is extraordinary that Ministers insist on continuing blindly along their chosen path.
Unless a way can be found to allow Ministers to step back without losing face, the Labour party—my party—will pay a price in the forthcoming general election. Commuters have a view on the PPP and they will express it in the ballot box. If the PPP goes forward without the changes suggested by Mr. Hutton and the Industrial Society, I only hope that Londoners do not pay a price for it in the form of drastically reduced safety.
Even at this late stage, I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to put dogma, their personal feelings towards my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and the question of loss of face to one side and to concentrate on the interests of the travelling public. Every survey available has proved that the proposed PPP will not meet the interests of the travelling public. It is not too late for Ministers to acknowledge that and to take up my hon. Friend's suggestion and let the transport commissioner for London give his considered opinion on the proposals.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I used to chair a health authority that covered her constituency and we regularly turned up at events together. However, I shall not intrude on the grief that is obvious between her and those on the Government Front Bench.
My constituency is in a London borough that does not contain any underground stations. However, my constituency has more railway stations than any other in the country. There are 14 and, if anyone wants to challenge me, I can recite them. However, Members would probably prefer me not to do that.
My constituents are primarily concerned with ensuring that their railways operate well. The railways are under considerable pressure at the moment, so my constituents do not want to be faced with congestion charging,

which will lead to more people using the railways. However, my constituents also want the underground, which they use when they come into the centre of town, to run efficiently.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for his comments about the Jubilee line. The firm of consulting engineers that was key to the line's engineering is based in Beckenham. It did an expert job in very difficult circumstances.
Many of my constituents use the underground, as do I. However, we should not ignore the fact that some of the underground's current problems are the result of the increased prosperity of the past 20 to 25 years. More and more people have more disposable income, so they are more likely to travel. That follows as night follows day. There are more cars on the road and more people use trains and the underground. The problems of London Underground cannot just be put down to a lack of investment and poor management.
The hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington probably do not help London Underground by castigating its managers. If the good managers in any organisation feel under pressure, they will leave and the organisation will be left with poorer managers. Of course, if those in the management structure are already demoralised, the last thing that they want is more unhelpful criticism. The poorer managers will also leave and that will leave the organisation badly under-managed. London Underground has a real difficulty with that, and I hope that a more constructive approach will be taken to its managers to bolster them in very difficult circumstances.
It was an inspired decision to appoint Mr. Kiley and bring him over from New York. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East on that. The most interesting fact I read was that Mr. Kiley had increased New York subway fares by 30 per cent. to create the money for investment. My first thought on learning that was how the Mayor would explain such an increase to my constituents and everyone else in London. Those of us who remember "fares fair" would find that increase difficult to understand. Mr. Kiley—poor man—is clearly completely constrained by the terms of the PPP.
It is, however, worth exploring and comparing the confidentiality agreement that the Government negotiated with Mr. Kiley with the confidentiality agreements that are signed by companies in the midst of takeovers or any other commercial transaction. As I understand it, a company that is involved in a bid for another company signs a confidentiality agreement that is sufficiently robust to allow the bidding company to look at all the books and ask all the questions necessary to get all the details. It is on the bidding company's own head if it leaves anything out. The legal agreement is so robust that there is no information that the company that is the subject of the bid cannot hand over, and it must not deliberately withhold information from the bidder.
If Mr. Kiley has signed that form of confidentiality agreement with the Government, there is no reason why all the information about the PPP cannot be made available to him. If, however, he has not been asked to sign such an agreement, the Department is at fault for not having a sufficiently robust confidentiality agreement. One way or another, the Minister has to reassure the


House about the quality of that agreement and say why, if it is sufficiently robust, Mr. Kiley cannot see the information. If it is not sufficiently robust, I suggest that the Department gets some better lawyers.
We do not know whether Mr. Kiley has accepted the appointment, but we have been assured that he is likely to sign up to it this Thursday. I feel for the man. He has to come into the snake-pit of London politics and, in addition, has to deal with the hugely complex problem that is London Underground without having all the facts—and I mean all the facts—at his disposal. He will have to be an extraordinarily robust character to survive much longer than six months. It would not be right for this very experienced person to be switched off and unable to operate within six months because of Government obduracy and the snake-pit of London politics.
We have directly elected Conservative members of the Greater London Assembly in my part of the world. I have been talking to some of them about their experience of Mr. Kiley, who went to a meeting of Assembly members just after he had been to the Department. His state of mind when he returned from visiting the Department was described as "disconsolate and dismayed." If he is already giving that impression to Assembly members of his relationship with the Department and how he expects it to develop, he will not be in the right frame of mind to take on and manage the extraordinarily complex structure that the Government have imposed on the PPP.
One other clear point—it relates to the questions that have arisen about safety and financing, and to the various reports that have been required—is that there seems to be a build-up of yet more delay in the delivery of the PPP. Although many of us do not represent London constituencies, most of us use the underground at some point, so I am sure that I do not need to repeat to everybody present the fact that the amount of cash going into the capital expenditure that London Underground requires is falling significantly. If there is further delay in the delivery of the PPP, London Underground will stagger to an investment halt. The problems that have already been identified will of course multiply, as progression in such matters is never arithmetic but geometric.
I would hate to hear from the Minister in his reply that there will be further delays in delivery and execution of the PPP. For whatever good reason—safety records, or whatever—we cannot afford any further delay in the fruition of, admittedly, probably the most worst option for the London underground. We cannot afford any more delay in finding a solution in one form or another, so that at least we know there is investment, and genuine plans for it, and people will see much greater improvement very quickly.
I would not want any further delays, and I seek a guarantee that no further delays are envisaged in the creation and operation of the PPP. I hope that the Government will not use the way they have so far treated Mr. Kiley as an excuse for yet further delay. We must have improvements in the London underground, and it is now down to the Government to get on and ensure that they are made as swiftly as possible.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me from these crowded Benches to contribute, along with the hon. Member for

Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the London Mayor, to the debate on the Opposition's unfortunate motion. They claim now to have an open mind on options for the London underground. Formerly, their ragbag of ideas comprised universal privatisation, which in Railtrack has proved most unsuccessful. So, I am glad that they made no attempt to present such a policy. Instead, they chose to dwell on a new policy of open-mindedness, which in the new Tory party is a contradiction in terms. The issue before us is not one of privatisation; that has not been debated. It is really that of credible options, such as issuing bonds and public-private partnership. I shall focus largely on those matters rather than following the Tory policy of kicking a person when he is down.
Hon. Members will know that I serve on the Public Accounts Committee. I am glad that it was made clear in August that the National Audit Office will be looking objectively at the different options before us and forming its verdict. I hope that everyone will take that particularly seriously. I welcome the appointment of Bob Kiley by the London Mayor. It is important to import new excellence to our public services, and I look forward to hearing his comments.
It is worth noting that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out that some of the major problems of the PPP resulted from the multiplicity of responsibility due to the break-up of the system, which leads to confusion and could therefore undermine safety. That completely contradicts the Tories' strategy for privatisation, which in itself gives rise to a multiplicity of functions and to confusion. The hon. Gentleman's comments are tantamount to an admission of guilt for the failures of privatisation and an explanation of why it has gone so badly wrong.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend has said that he welcomes the appointment of Bob Kiley. Would he therefore welcome the Government releasing to Mr. Kiley all the information that he has asked for?

Mr. Davies: I think that it is important that the Government share information with Mr. Kiley and work closely with him to get the best transport system for London. There might be marginal issues relating to timing the release of confidential commercial information during a competitive tender process, but Mr. Kiley and the National Audit Office need at their disposal a complete account of the options available for the London system.

Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman, rightly, criticises the Conservatives for highlighting the problems of fragmentation caused by the PPP, and points out that that is exactly what happened under railway privatisation. Does that mean that he accepts that there is a problem of fragmentation associated with PPP?

Mr. Davies: No, that was not my point: I focused on the contradiction in the Conservative argument. However, I accept that if an organisation comprises too many pieces, there will be problems of co-ordination, which might lead to confusion, higher costs and, in extreme cases, problems with safety.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) focused, not on the Industrial Society's report, but on a half remembered telephone conversation


with Will Hutton. Having met Will Hutton, I do not believe that he will thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating apparently confidential remarks in the House of Commons, especially as he has already issued a statement for public consultation in the Industrial Society's report. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman will receive much more co-operation from Mr. Hutton.

Mr. Brake: I am pleased to be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that I clarified with Mr. Hutton whether he thought it appropriate for me to relate his views on the subject. I also confirmed whether he was quite happy with my interpretation—he was.

Mr. Davies: That is good to hear.
It was also interesting to hear the rendition of Mr. Hutton's views given by the hon. Member for North Essex. He claimed that in the Industrial Society report, Will Hutton said that the problems of the PPP were, first, its uncertainty—well, we all know that the future is uncertain, and we understand the complexity of the options, so that is only stating the obvious—and secondly, that the extra cost of capital could, by some arithmetic, be translated into a 30 per cent. hike in fares.
In fact, London's tube system is one of the few in the world that makes positive gross margins—about £300 million a year—but it does not generate enough to pay back the cost of capital. Therefore, one can look at the figures and say that, at the margin, the cost of capital is greater under PPP than with bonds, for example, and then translate that into fares—but the issue to be considered when comparing the options is not the cost of capital, but overall value for money in terms of risk transfer, cost of delays and so on. It is easy to make quick comments, but careful consideration is required.

Mr. Howard Flight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I intend to expand on those points, so it might be better to take the hon. Gentleman's intervention then.
I consider it unfortunate that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington gratuitously linked our serious debate on the different financial options for investment in the tube with the recent Austrian disaster. There is enough scaremongering going on. Many speakers have said that the tube is safe, even though it needs more investment. The tube is a good system and we need to renew it; the question is, how do we do that for Londoners?

Mr. Flight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who tried to intervene earlier.

Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was on an earlier point that I wanted to ask him a question. Does not money raised by bond issue have to be repaid? The history of bond issues to finance similar investments in the United States, or other public sector undertakings, shows that when one lot of bonds matures,

it can be refunded with another lot of bonds. The model for financing by bond issue does not necessarily entail fare charges to repay the capital.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not always the case. In some bond issues, additional money has had to be obtained from taxpayers, because of the value of the bonds. Bonds entail an element of uncertainty and risk, which would be set against the London taxpayer—but the Mayor is currently not empowered to raise tax to cover that risk. That is one of the problems. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point, so that I could demonstrate that it was wrong.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I will certainly take an intervention from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It will give me great joy to respond to this one.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should not speak too soon, because he knows not upon what subject the intervention comes. In the light of his remarks about the need to minimise fragmentation—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will cease chuntering. In the light of what he said about the need to minimise fragmentation, what is his assessment of Pricewaterhouse's conclusion on the structure, upon which the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee deliberated in July 1998?

Mr. Davies: What a fine point! That was worth waiting for. The Pricewaterhouse analysis indeed shows a certain amount of fragmentation of the various components, the purpose of which was to generate competition and value for money. If the hon. Gentleman were not relying on a one-liner from the Library, he would know that the matter was more complex than that rather silly intervention—[Interruption.] That was characteristic of the guffawing to which I have become accustomed from that small character on the Opposition Benches.
I shall move to a point more serious than such one-liners, which we have come to expect instead of reasoned dialogue. I invite the hon. Gentleman to make a proper speech, rather than resort to the one-liners that he looks up late at night, a sad man in the Library.
Moving on from that momentary, derisory distraction, the issue between PPP and bonds is not simply ideological. It is an empirical question of which is the best value for money. There will obviously be a debate about who is best equipped to analyse that. The Mayor—the hon. Member for Brent, East—mentioned a number of experts who have come forward. There are other experts with different views, and we await the verdict of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
I see this as an empirical issue. Hon. Members may know that I was the leader of London's largest council, Croydon council—

Mr. Bercow: Has Croydon recovered?

Mr. Davies: Was that an intervention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We have had enough interventions from a sedentary position and banter of one kind or another. I should be grateful if we could get on with the debate.

Mr. Davies: I value the dull humour of the hon. Member for Buckingham. That is a character failure of my own, I suppose.
When I was leader of Croydon council, we introduced Tramlink, which was a public-private partnership. The private sector invested some £100 million and the public sector some £125 million. As has been pointed out, there was a delay. The system was supposed to begin operating last November, but in fact it started in May. Already it is the most successful tram system in the country, moving 45,000 people a day.
The cost of the delay from November to May is being borne by the private sector. Risk transfer was built into the contract. Under PPP, a contract is drawn up, and if the private sector fails, the cost of failure in terms of delay or exceeding the budget will be transferred. That is precisely the point that I made earlier in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Kensington—

Mr. Bercow: Who? You are all over the shop.

Mr. Davies: I should have said the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I intervened on him earlier, when he hailed the Jubilee line as a great Tory success. I pointed out that it was about £l billion over budget and a year late. That was no success. If it had been a PPP, the transfer of risk would have gone to the private sector. That is the point. The issue is about value for money.

Mr. Livingstone: Is my hon. Friend aware that under their contracts, contractors will be fully compensated if they run only 95 per cent. of the existing service? Services can be cut by a further 5 per cent., but they will still be fully compensated. That does not build in an improvement, but allows a further margin for failure.

Mr. Davies: That is not an a priori point, but a contingent point. The issue is the terms of the contract. Unacceptable contracts may be drawn up, and Mr. Robert Kiley, the hon. Member for Brent, East and others may produce good ideas on how they can be tightened up. I agree that there could be good arguments for doing that, and various issues have been raised in that respect. People have asked, "Why can't we untie these? Will they last the 30 years? Can't we have different options?" Those are legitimate value-for-money questions that should be considered by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office in reaching a verdict, just as we should consider such matters in reaching our verdict. There is a proper debate in which those points should properly be included. There is nothing inherently good or bad about the proposed system. We should be discussing the contingent issue of what the contract says, and what is best for the public in terms of value for money.
Tramlink is a project in which we were able to transfer risk. As a result, we have already established the most effective tram system in the country. That shows that the proposal can work. It has been suggested that it would not work in particular scenarios, but that is obvious.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Before we move away from the superficial attractions of bond issues, I have a brief question. I am sure that other hon. Members are more than aware of the answer, but sadly, I am not. I do not know any philanthropic capitalist who is anxious

to invest in bonds without receiving a return. Who would service the bonds? Would it be the people of the whole country or the people of London, or would the proposal be a further drain on London Transport's small margin of operating profit?

Mr. Davies: As has been pointed out, it is hoped that bonds will be self-financing. The risk, however, is that they will not be. If that happens, we must then decide who pays. One would usually assume that London taxpayers would pay, but the Mayor is not empowered by current legislation to increase taxes. If it is proposed that the Mayor should be empowered to raise taxes, Londoners will have to be consulted again. Obviously, there was massive popular support for the hon. Member for Brent, East when he became Mayor, but it was not given on the understanding that he would be able to raise taxes. We are considering a different political question, to which people might respond differently.

Ms Abbott: They would not.

Mr. Davies: I do not know. My hon. Friend might be right, but the point is that we do not know. There may be a downside liability, but there is currently no cover for such liability. Again, value for money is at stake, not the cost of capital. In debates such as this, it is often said that the cost of capital for PPP is greater than the cost of bonds and public sector borrowing. I agree, but the Jubilee line is an obvious example of how other factors must be taken into account. The cost of capital would have been completely overwhelmed by the extra cost of taking the traditional route, because of the cost in terms of delay and running over budget.
Various issues, including delays, must be considered in relation to the argument of PPP versus bonds and tax raising with bonds. Those issues must be considered carefully, although it is understandable that hon. Members are saying, "Okay, we've been hanging around here for ages. When will we get something done?" One of the costs of bonds is simple to explain. If we all decided to take the bonds option, a couple of years would be added to the timetable for the tube's overall progress. That is a genuine cost. It is not merely a delayed letter or a similar hitch, but a measurable cost in terms of economic activity and disruption for the people of London. That must be factored into the analysis.

Mr. Brake: I agree entirely that if a bond issue were launched now, a two-year process might be initiated. However, will the hon. Gentleman contrast the two years that might be involved with such a project with the four years involved with the PPP? Had the Government embarked on bonds four years ago, the system would now be up and running.

Mr. Davies: With respect, that is rather a silly question. As with all political choices, we have arrived where we are. That being so, what is the best thing to do? The hon. Gentleman might be able to argue that we should have done something earlier—an argument that could be taken back in time. Given where we are, should we keep going and finish PPP, or opt for bonds to see whether that approach works after another couple of years? These are the real options.

Mr. Livingstone: The current best estimate is that work under PPP—that is, work on the lines—might start


as early as next September. There is not the slightest doubt that if there were the backing of the Government through the Treasury, bonds could be around in a matter of weeks. Bonds could advance the start of the work, not delay it.

Mr. Davies: That was an important intervention. We must be crystal clear about different options and costs. One of the variables is obviously delay. I believe that work should be brought forward by public sector direct investment if there is an acceptable gap in PPP investment when set against what the new levels of investment should be.
The hon. Member for Brent, East suggests that bonds could bring forward funding within weeks. I understood that there would be delay for years. However, it is a matter of fact rather than judgment, and I stand to be corrected. One of the issues must be the cost of time, and I am sure that that will be factored into how the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee approach the matter.
We have not talked about the third option, which is privatisation. We all know that the history of Railtrack privatisation involved the sale of about £2 billion worth of assets, which were valued at £8 billion a couple of years later. With the Tories' suggestions, we would look forward to the same thing—a rip-off sell-off, a takeover by a profit-maximising operator, who would reduce capacity, increase price and provide a worse service for Londoners. I have not dwelt on privatisation because it is such a ridiculous suggestion from the Tories.
We need sure investment now. The investment should not go up and down, as Government funding does. In reality, Governments sometimes turn down investment as they approach elections. That is precisely what the Tories did. That is why we ended up with a £1.2 billion backlog of essential investment. For self-interest rather than public interest, the Tories decided, "We'll cut that back, introduce a few pre-election tax cuts, mess around with interest rates and tamper with the political process." PPP gives a guaranteed cashflow investment into public services. That is one of the key benefits. With bonds, issues arise about different values and risks that may affect investment flows over time. That is something to be factored into the various considerations.
Different people make different assessments. Professor David Currie of the London business school thinks that PPP would be £2.3 billion cheaper, and that overall it would bring about savings of £3.3 billion. Such analyses are professional, but they are contentious. I make that point because the hon. Member for Brent, East listed people who had adopted a different argument.
Members have dwelt on safety, an issue that is important to us all. The first condition of safety is investment now. The second condition is value for money. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said, in terms of ownership, safety will still be the responsibility of London Underground. The Government are attempting to put into place an investment stream that will be a pre-condition for safety.
I have already talked about sanctions on contractors. It is important that there are proper controls and sanctions over inadequate investment or management performance. The Mayor should have the power to act in the interests

of the public. Overall, the issue is not black and white. We are having an honest debate and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: It is always a pleasure when authentic Members such as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) participate in our debates. It is not such a pleasure to hear people who are not real, such as the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) may consider the hon. Gentleman a cheeky chappie, but I think he is a poor imitation of Frankie Howerd, and his speech was not in any sense funny. It would have been a significant speech had it been delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have the Falconer contagion and is running away from his responsibilities to this House. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman's policy is failing. Were that not the case, why would the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) weary the House with a speech of Front-Bench proportions? As Members representing London constituencies, we demand better from the Deputy Prime Minister.
In my constituency, there are no fewer than eight tube stations serving three lines. The underground system is essential for my constituents to get to work. There is often a glitch—sometimes a major problem that delays their arrival at work by hours—or other difficulties, such as discomfort, irregular running or rudeness by staff. It is not surprising that one of the tabloids today reported that the experience of commuting is even more stressful than the worst workplace—and so it is for many of my constituents. This should not and need not be so.
In its manifesto, the Labour party led us to believe that things could only get better, and that they would, indeed, get better for London Underground, thanks to the public-private partnership. No doubt was expressed: the public-private partnership was part of Labour's fundamental commitment to the electorate not just in London but nationwide. People were led to believe that it would come into operation very shortly after Labour came to office, and furthermore that the Mayor of London, when returned to power, would have under his control Transport for London, which would include a key element of London's overall transport system, namely the underground.
When I said to the Under-Secretary that it was preposterous that the Labour party had perpetrated such a fraud on the electorate of London, and that no one in London would gain any confidence from his admission that we are going to have to wait still longer for the public-private partnership to become operational, the hon. Gentleman shrugged his shoulders and said that it was of no importance. It is of importance. Two fundamental issues seem to be causing the delay—a safety audit by the Health and Safety Executive and the basic financial question of whether the PPP will be cost-effective, which will be assessed in the National Audit Office report.
A policy as central to a party aspiring to office as the public-private partnership should have been worked out in advance while that party was in opposition. No responsible political party should put in its programme a


policy that falls apart when it gets into office and does not work. We warned the Labour party throughout the sittings of the Committee which considered the Greater London Authority Bill that it would happen, and it has. That explains why so few Labour Members are present.
How wise my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are to be open-minded. We do not know the circumstances under which we will take office. We will take office either in national Government in the spring or autumn next year—it is clear, and the Mayor has made it plain, that the public-private partnership will not be up and running by then—or at a London level at the next mayoral elections. It will happen, because we have a majority of the directly elected seats on the Greater London Authority, and I do not think that the people of London will be impressed by the coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which is frustrating the Assembly's function of keeping a check on the mayoralty, not least on transport policy for London.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Given that the hon. Gentleman is promoting a policy of open-mindedness on the ground that there is uncertainty about the future, does he think that it should be Tory policy to be open-minded on everything? Would that not be common sense? Is it not the case that we do not know what will happen? The Tories have made U-turns on the tax guarantee. Are we entering a new era of open-mindedness from the Tories?

Mr. Wilkinson: The Conservative party is certainly in favour of common sense: that is a central theme of all our policies. As for open-mindedness, it is an engaging and rare political characteristic, which I find in my hon. Friends.
My central point is that we do not know in what circumstances we will take power. Perhaps it will be nationally at first and then in London, in which case we will be in control of the GLA and central Government. We must take things as they come. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who was honest in saying that the logical position is either to have the tube run wholly in the public sector or to privatise it as an entity so that at least there is a clear chain of command: people know where they stand, there is less opportunity for conflict and confusion and safety issues and risks are minimised. That was the view of London Underground when it did its study. How wrong it is of the Government not to permit that study to be in the public domain, in the Library and available to the Greater London Authority.
Secrecy in the negotiations between the mayoralty and central Government over the appointment of Mr. Kiley and the information available to him will have a profound effect on the confidence of the people of London in the Government. They expected the Government to be open and to share these basic facts with those responsible for taking important decisions on behalf of Londoners. The Government clearly do not intend to do so. They are ideologically driven, and are frightened that if the truth comes out, the can of worms will be opened in its entirety.
There is a necessity to get on with producing an effective system. This state of limbo should not endure any longer. It is an intolerable state of affairs. In my part

of north-west London, we want the Croxley link to be established to connect the Metropolitan line with Watford Junction station. Other people advocate as a priority the extension of the Central line through south and west Ruislip to Uxbridge. and perhaps even down to Heathrow. Some suggest that the Piccadilly line which runs from Rayners Lane through my constituency to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) should be continued in a loop to join up with the Piccadilly line at Heathrow.
Important projects should be completed but are being stymied thanks to the confusion caused by the Labour Government. This state of affairs should not be allowed to endure. That is why the critical motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends is timely, and why it deserves the House's wholehearted approbation.

Mr. Keith Darvill: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, and especially to listen to contributions from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who always speak in such debates.
My constituency is at the beginning of the District line—its eastern terminus is Upminster. It is the only underground station, but it is important because my constituents benefit from the link with the underground system. They also have the alternative of using the overland system from the C2C operator—the former London to Tilbury line. My constituents have that advantage: if there is a problem with the underground, they can use alternative rail services.
I was interested in the statistics that the hon. Member for Brent, East gave about satisfaction rates among London Transport users. In current circumstances, and bearing in mind the troubles of recent weeks, 46 per cent. is an incredible statistic. However, it does not surprise me because the most common comment is that the underground system is basically a good one on which people rely. Hon. Members and the travelling public rely on it to get to work each day, and their experience is usually good. However, there has been a deterioration in the service, which was caused by increased usage and people's different life styles and different working hours. My experience—I use the tube most days—is that it is operating over capacity. I frequently leave the House after 10 pm, and find that the trains are full. Capacity is important.

Mr. Bercow: Given that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) slavishly read out a brief for 22 minutes but failed to say anything coherent about value for money on the tube network, will the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor be kind enough to tell the House what he thinks explains the increase from 32 per cent. to 65 per cent., revealed in the MSB survey, in the proportion of regular tube users who believe that the tube does not provide good value for money? The change occurred between one year of the Labour Government, 1999, and another, 2000.

Mr. Darvill: There are several reasons for that. Last year and the year before, there was a significant deterioration in several services, involving escalators,


which caused significant difficulties. The delay in the completion of the Jubilee line extension was another factor. However, the main factor is the lack of sustained investment over several years. This is not a party political point, but investment in the underground system pre-war—

Mr. Bercow: Which war?

Mr. Darvill: The second world war. There was significant investment in the underground system before the war. Had that rate of investment been maintained during the latter part of the century, we would not be facing today's difficulties. The major part of the blame for the failure to maintain investment must rest with the party that was in power for most of that period. I do not deny that the Labour party was in power for some of that time, and bears part of the responsibility, but the Conservative party was in power for most of the period during which such investment could have been maintained. That failure has to be reversed.
Whatever the organisational or ownership system for the underground—whether it is privatised, whether a PPP is involved or whether the situation is left as it is—investment is crucial. My constituents are concerned about the tube's future, but the Opposition motion only expresses concern about the PPP.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for the deterioration, and for the increase in the number of people expressing concern about value for money, is that more people are using the tube because the Government are putting more people into work, and those people have to travel?

Mr. Darvill: My hon. Friend makes a good point about a contributory factor. Other factors include the effect of congestion on our roads and pricing on the underground. Travelcards, which I know are not available to rush-hour travellers, represent good value for money and are used by many of my constituents, who can travel after 9.30 am from Upminster to the other side of London for a good price. That has led to an increase in the use of the underground system. Although it is possible further to expand that use, expansion is limited by capacity problems. We therefore need increased investment, which will help to develop integrated transport policies. Important environmental issues are also involved. We should not consider any of those problems in isolation, and we need to deal with them quickly.
My constituents tell me that, however we decide to attract investment, we must get on with the job. They want investment sooner rather than later and I am happy to examine the PPP, which is a way forward. Although I appreciate that there are concerns about it, some of them are the result of scaremongering. The underground system should be comfortable, clean, reliable and safe—that is what constituents want and, when the investment goes in, that is what will be delivered.
The Opposition motion refers to the appointment, which I welcome, of a senior management official. I urge the Government to provide any information necessary for him to do his work properly—subject, of course, to the consideration that commercial confidentiality should be protected. If we are going through a bidding process and

trying to get best value for the public purse, commercial confidentiality is important. Subject to that consideration, all the information should be made available.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend cites the importance of commercial confidentiality. Is he aware that Mr. Kiley gave an undertaking about the confidentiality of the material? Does my hon. Friend not believe Mr. Kiley, given that Mr. Kiley spent 10 years in the CIA?

Mr. Darvill: I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. If I were responsible for commercial contracts and I wanted to get the best bid, I would want to secure commercial confidentiality. Subject to that consideration—it may be possible to extract the information from the relevant documents—my view is that information should be passed on as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
The Opposition motion is ill timed because the Government have already said that they are having meetings with Mr. Kiley. Legislation involving the PPP is on the statute book, and the problem, as I see it, lies with its implementation. The sooner we introduce the arrangements, the better. I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support the Government amendment.

Mr. John Randall: I am delighted to take part in the debate not only because I see many veterans on both sides of the House from the Standing Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but because, although I often describe myself as an inhabitant of Middlesex, I am also a Londoner. In this instance, I feel that I am an inhabitant of Metroland: Uxbridge is the sort of area that was described by Sir John Betjeman.
The fact that no main line runs through Uxbridge is, apparently, as a result of the love of non-conformism among inhabitants of Uxbridge, who were not keen for trains to travel through the area on a main line on Sundays. I like to think that such non-conformism is still present in Uxbridge and surrounding areas.
No doubt hon. Members on both sides of the House will be well acquainted with the journey to Uxbridge. They will know that my constituency contains three underground stations: Uxbridge, Hillingdon and Ickenham. I used to travel to school on the underground—

Mr. Pound: Tell us about it, John.

Mr. Randall: And I used to travel on the underground when I was at university. So I have a certain affection for the experience of being bumped around on the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines at various times of the day and night.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Randall: Yes.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.
Will my hon. Friend accept from me that the most pleasurable journeys on the London underground to the Uxbridge station that I have ever in my life undertaken took place during the July 1997 by-election campaign, in which he was so triumphant?

Mr. Randall: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that he enjoyed that time as much as every other Member.
Many of my constituents use the underground to get to work, and many aged over 60 or 65 are very grateful for the free pass that enables them to travel to London: it is often used.
We are very interested in the future of the underground. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that many people will think about it carefully when casting their votes at the forthcoming general election. It might therefore be in my interest to encourage the Government to continue their present line on the PPP, which is deeply unpopular throughout the area, but I think that if I did so I would do a disservice to my constituents, and to fellow Londoners.
As I said earlier, many Members who are present today were involved in the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill. We had hardly any time for discussion, and what we discussed was not what happened in the end.

Mr. Pound: It was because of the Liberals.

Mr. Randall: Most things are.
I am glad that our motion allows such open-mindedness to operate in today's discussion. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) offered the Government a very fair option: to let Mr. Kiley himself decide what was preferable. It was refreshing to hear the hon. Gentleman propose a solution in which dogma would not decide the issues that matter to London.
As we have elected a Mayor, I think it fair to say this: most people voted for him thinking that he would sort out London's transport problems, and most of them would like the Mayor and his office to get on with the job with which they believe they entrusted him. Many of my constituents will be sad to learn that he has been constrained by the Government. If the Government really are frightened of an independent assessment, as they seem to be, that is a sad indictment.
As I think is recognised, what we need is real investment. The infrastructure is not in a good state. I want to look to the future: I want to see imagination being used. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned projects to extend the tube in his constituency, and I ask the Minister again to consider the possibility of extending the Central line to Uxbridge.
On one occasion, during Question Time, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he had considered that option. He told me that it had been looked at and rejected when the Government came to power. Subsequently, correspondence—delegated to the Minister, I believe—revealed the interesting fact that the Government had neither examined nor discussed the possibility, but had they done so they would no doubt have rejected it.
Another subject that crops up frequently during discussions about the underground is further access for disabled passengers. That too will require investment. In the case of some stations there is access to platforms, but getting on to trains is less easy, and there is always the problem at the other end: disabled people will probably want to get out of trains at a point where they cannot possibly do so.
The problem with Uxbridge is that it is a terminus, and for many years there has been no planning for car parking. There is no incentive for drivers to go to Uxbridge or, indeed, other stations in my constituency, and then to continue their journeys to the centre of London.
We have a problem. The service has been deteriorating. It is slow, and somewhat dirty; it is certainly not particularly attractive in the evenings, and we are subject to increasing delays. I hope that the Government will listen to Londoners of all political persuasions—and probably, the way things are now, of none—give the Mayor and his director of transport a level playing field, and give us the underground in London that we all want.

Mr. Stephen Pound: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). He oozes decency to such a degree that it is almost impossible to disagree with him—but we must struggle to do so, in the name of the people.
I have to say that there are occasions on which I do disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Given that he has issued a wish list for tube and infrastructure improvements in London Transport, however, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recall that I may have written to him about the absence of a down escalator at Greenford station.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge made an important point about access for people with disabilities. The footings for the Greenford station escalator were installed in 1943, but because—sadly—the steel was needed elsewhere at the time, we now have footings but no escalator. Since then the people of Greenford—men and women carrying babies, shopping, luggage and now, under the present Government, enormous pay packets—have struggled personfully down the stairs, without an escalator, but knowing each time that the footings exist beneath their very feet.
The point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge should not, however, distract us from some of the more unpleasant and, I have to say, overly politically partisan points made by other speakers who have not considered the issue of transport provision for London except in the narrowest of party political terms. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an extraordinary speech, in which he was unkind—indeed, beastly—to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). He simply did not behave like a gentleman. I would expect better from one with his record.
I wish I could have asked the hon. Gentleman of what towering achievements during the 18 years of Conservative Government he was most proud. What were the enormous infrastructure improvements? What were the new track, signalling and equipment financing arrangements? What new tube stations were built? What,


apart from the Heathrow loop, was done to improve London's transport during those 18 dark, dank, dismal years?

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Pound: I recall them not, but I am sure I will be given a list now by the hon. Member for somewhere miles from London.

Mr. Jenkin: We completed the Victoria line, we ordered the Jubilee line extension, we built the docklands light railway, we ordered the Croydon Tramlink—would the hon. Gentleman like me to go on?

Mr. Pound: The hon. Gentleman is good at saying what he "ordered"; he is less good at saying what was actually delivered during that period. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) leads me to sympathise with the point made by the Leader of the Opposition in the popular press today that Scottish Members of Parliament should never be allowed to comment on matters relating to England. Perhaps bumptious bumpkins from Buckinghamshire should not be able to comment on issues relating to London. A prerequisite for participating in our debate tonight should be the possession of one, two or, in my case, three and a half tube stations.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pound: Yes, let us trade insults.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, I really am. I represent Buckingham, which is close to my heart. I have an agreeable residence there, to which I do not intend to invite the hon. Gentleman. However, he is woefully ignorant of the fact that I have had a home in London for 37 years. I probably know more tube stations than he has forgotten, and have forgotten more tube stations than he knows.

Mr. Pound: It is well known that the hon. Member for Buckingham arrived at his selection meeting in a borrowed helicopter. I would suggest that the sort of a chap who borrows a helicopter to go to a selection meeting is not overly familiar with London Transport.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay proceedings unduly, and am greatly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, is it in order for one hon. Member to accuse another of borrowing something for which he paid and which left a large hole in his pocket?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Pound: I did not imply that the hon. Member for Buckingham managed to nick a helicopter from helicopter parking in Buckinghamshire. I was merely saying that the helicopter was not the hon. Gentleman's own.
Moving on to the substantive issue, I have a great deal of sympathy for the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) for an end to the arcane nonsense of angels dancing on the head of a pin, and an improvement in the service. I represent the western end of the District line where the position is intolerable—if it is not, I do not know the meaning of the word. We are pressure-cooked and steamed in the morning—if we are lucky enough to get on the damned train. When we get out of the train at the other end—assuming that we do, as I believe that many of my constituents do not emerge from that black hole—we are reamed, steamed and dry-cleaned.
That appalling and outrageous situation is matched in horror only by the sheer brass neck and utter effrontery of the Conservative party which, for 18 years, did virtually nothing to improve the situation, left us with a black hole of £1.2 million underfunding, cut all funding in the year before the election and required London Underground to break even at the end of every financial year, in one of the most ludicrous pieces of accounting practice ever seen in the world. Now, the Conservative party suddenly appears to be the champion of the tube passenger, which is amazing, considering that its former leader, Baroness Thatcher, memorably said that anyone over the age of 30 who travels on public transport is a failure. The Opposition motion on the Order Paper has, as we say round my way, more front than the Hoover building. It is outrageous for the Opposition to suggest that they are seeking to do anything other than score party political points and drive a wedge between the Labour party and our good friend the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
The hon. Member for Brent, East made a well-informed, cogent and important contribution in addressing the issue of safety. To be perfectly honest, I am agnoistic about funding, and do not care where the money comes from, as long as it comes. I would be quite happy if an Opposition Member chipped in and gave us a capital injection. The important things are the ownership of the underground system and its safety record.
I see no causative link between these two factors, but within six months of my being elected, there was an enormous train crash at Southall, which adjoins my constituency. When I went down there, I found that people were dealing with 21 different companies. Because of the fragmentation, it was impossible to try and identify any lines of control, command and communication. If the majority of Government Members wanted to privatise London Underground, fragment it and carve it up into a British Rail-type disaster, I could not bring myself to vote for that. Thankfully, that is not the case, and there is no suggestion that London Underground will be anything other than a single entity that is a publicly controlled and owned company.
The hon. Member for Brent, East made an important point, which must be addressed. He agreed that there will be one publicly owned, accountable, strategic company for the whole city. However, what about contractors and subcontractors? How can there be accountability, when contractors are subcontracting, as are the subcontractors themselves? Even the most monopolistic public body has contractors and subcontractors. To try to make the point that a public company is not a public company because it


may occasionally employ a subcontracted sparks on the signalling system is, if not mendacious, certainly whipping up scares without any valid ground.

Ms Abbott: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend does not seem to understand the Government's proposals. The Government are putting in place proposals whereby three infracos are bidding for three separate contracts. There will not be a unified company in the way that my hon. Friend described.
My hon. Friend was flippant about the use of subcontractors. However, all the comments on the Hatfield disaster that I have seen have suggested that it was precisely because Railtrack hollowed itself out and contracted and subcontracted responsibilities for maintenance, that repairs were not done as quickly as they should have been.

Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for that. One of the hardest things is to try to have a sensible, logical debate in the long shadow of British Rail privatisation, which is an example of how not to privatise. It is unfortunate when people try to extrapolate from the splintered privatisation involving British Rail and Railtrack and compare that to London Transport. However, the proposals for London Transport are not comparable to those for British Rail, as we are not talking about several companies running tubes on a system owned by a different company. With respect, there is no comparison.
We have a transport system for our capital that is creaking at the seams because of under-investment over many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central made the point that more people may be using the tube, and I agree that capacity is an issue. However, London Transport was privately funded in the middle of the 19th century, mostly by American money. It was built privately, was used and cherished by Londoners, and did not even come into the public domain until after the first world war. The system was one in which ownership was not as important as reliability, punctuality, efficiency and safety, and we must concentrate on those factors now.
Under the Government's proposals, the idea is that assets will return to the public sector after they have been upgraded. I appreciate that, in politics, one should always look a gift horse in the mouth. However, in this case, we have as good a financial deal as we are going to get, and the only realistic alternative is for the entire country to pay to upgrade London Transport through taxation. I do not think that hon. Members could reasonably propose to do that. Bonds are an attractive option, at which we should look. However, that is not a free option, and the idea that a bond issue could be wholly self-financing is theoretical rather than practical. No one will fund a bond issue with nil return, as risk and exposure are involved and interest payments have to be met. The idea that such an issue could be completely ring-fenced and self-financing is more hopeful than practical.
The key issue is the need to take action now in the names of Londoners and to make safety paramount. The scares about fragmentation leading to Hatfield-type disasters are not appropriate, as that is not what is being proposed.
The motion deserves to be voted down. Any Opposition Member who supports it in the Lobby should hang their head in shame and ask themselves: what did we do during

our 18 years that made the situation better? From where I stand—not the man on the Clapham omnibus, but the man on the District line in the morning—I see an underfunded tube system that is just about on the edge of disaster. We must rescue it. Let us do it in the name not of ideology, but of practicality and, above all, urgency.

Mr. Howard Flight: Surely what is right is what will be the right structure to secure quality of service, value for money and safety, not fatuous debates about who did what.
In the United States, bonds have been a successful way for municipalities, particularly the New York subway, to fund themselves. An interesting irony has not been drawn out. When politicians use bond funding, in essence it makes them and the organisation capitalist because their success rests on the efficiency and success of the operation. If a mayor of a major city faces the prospect of that city financing a collapse and refunding bond lenders, he and his party will not get elected again for a long time, so bond funding puts into politics and civil transport a strong capitalist motive.
I have no doubt about the ability of London, if politically endowed, to raise the money. Do not forget that it is as large as Switzerland. London's credit-worthiness would be undoubted. We are in an age where there is a great shortage of bonds. The problem with pension funds and annuities is that there are not enough bonds to invest in, so there would be ready demand for issued bonds.
The operation must service the interest—that goes without saying—but, stepping back, that option is likely to be cheaper than the public-private partnership investment option because there is no profit element involved. The crucial thing is: if it stayed wholly within the public sector, could the service be run as efficiently and as safely, and better, than under the PPPI structure that is proposed? I share the doubts of many. What has happened is that the Government have funked the full option of privatisation for a halfway house, which may not be the right way to run a major subway system.
I close by saying what others have said. The public want to know what the recommendations are. The United States has one of the best records in turning around past failures and making a success of them. No one can go to New York without feeling that it has a thoroughly efficient subway system, which, unlike many of those in continental Europe, is not a huge drag on the taxpayer, but there is one caveat: such bond issues must not have any central Government guarantee. That would undermine the whole discipline and process. To look at it the other way round, a risk of PPPI is that the Government are potentially more exposed to picking up the tab than they are by a municipal bond issue that is ring-fenced. As has tended to happen in rail and other sectors, it becomes irresistible for the Government to get involved in providing public sector money when things start to go wrong.
We have a new political situation. For better or worse, the new Mayor was elected on a particular mandate. We have staggered to where we are in terms of the proposals. It is so important for the long term that the position should be looked at anew, particularly in the light of the recommendations of Mr. Kiley, perhaps the world expert, on how it will be most practical to run London's subway for the future.

Mr. Tony Colman: I declare an interest as a current director and founder chair of Public Private Partnerships Programme, which is the local government private finance initiative company and which began to operate in 1996, under the previous Government. It is all party. We have Conservative Members, including a Member of the other place, Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Members. It has been uncontentious and an avenue for the investment of some £20 billion of funding, which is flowing into local government in a wide range of sectors, including education and social services.
We have public-private partnerships for hospitals. I was pleased that, today, the Secretary of State for Health has announced the PPP for my local hospital, Queen Mary's. I mention those to show that we are talking about something that, other than in respect of the underground, appears to have broad support. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has mentioned Tramlink. One end of it was in Croydon. The other end was in Merton, where I had the great honour to serve as the leader of the council. I was pleased to see that PPP go forward.
I was not able to be in the House to listen to the contribution from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), but it surprises me that the number of PPPs that Brent council has had over the past three years has not been commented on by him, as far as I know, in the House at any time, so the problem does not seem to be the concept of PPPs.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend will be aware that people who object to the PPP do not object to PPPs in principle. They object to this misbegotten PPP.

Mr. Colman: I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that with all other PPPs, which run into many billions of pounds, there is no problem, but that there is a problem with this one. All of us—well, perhaps all of us; all sane Members— [Interruption.] I withdraw that. All Members who can see the clarity of the situation would oppose the view that has again been expressed by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who I think I am still able to claim as a constituent—but perhaps he has moved on. The Conservatives' view appears to be based on privatising the underground. It is unvarnished—they see it disappearing into the private sector. We all know—it has been mentioned by other Members—what has happened in the past three years and the huge number of additional accidents that have occurred through privatisation of British Rail.
The second alternative, which seems to be espoused by Liberal Democrat Members, is bonds. What we opt for must provide best value, but the key point about bonds is that the risk is retained within the public sector; the risk is retained by the council tax payer and taxpayer. I am not keen that the risk be held by those taxpayers. That is not the way forward, especially given that such experience and expertise has built up over the past three years of the Labour Government.
Incidentally, I was pleased that the first legislation that we passed in the House in the current Parliament was the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997, which sorted out the mess that the Tories had made of PPP. It sorted out who was going to do what and on what basis we could

go forward to ensure that subsequent decisions were not deemed ultra vires. Our proposal went forward based on the utmost clarity.
My involvement with PPP came when I was elected as leader of Merton council. I had to travel from Morden to the City on the Northern line, which at that time was in a deplorable state. I am therefore pleased that, with colleagues, I have been able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to go forward with a PFI PPP for the Northern line trains. That took some eight years to get through but the trains started to run under that arrangement last year. That success shows the incompetence of the Tories in trying to sort that out. I hope that, after the three to four years that we have had in government, the PPP that will emerge shortly for the underground will be something with which we are all happy on the basis of best value for taxpayers and the safety of London.

Mr. Brake: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why Londoners voted overwhelmingly against PPP in the Greater London Assembly elections.

Mr. Colman: There were a number of issues in those elections: PPP, privatisation or bonds. We are now studying that range of options.
Other hon. Members have mentioned their constituencies. I give two vignettes about the District line, Wimbledon branch. East Putney station had to be restored after decades of dereliction under the previous Government. The work overran by nearly a year. I tried to obtain compensation for my constituents who live next to the station, but was informed by London Underground that, as it was itself performing the contract, it was unable to offer compensation.
In the other case, about two weeks ago, there were great delays, which were attributed to flooding, on the track between Wimbledon Park and Southfields. Although the reason given for the delays would seem to make sense, the track is on a 30 ft high embankment.
Clearly, in both cases, the contractor organised by London Underground failed to deliver that which it should have delivered. I want a public-private partnership that keeps accountability in the public sector, but enables private finance and management to be used on the infrastructure. I believe that such an arrangement would be the right one for the people of London.

Mr. Robert Syms: This has been an important debate, and we have had some good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, not only is this the fourth time that we have debated the tube, but all those debates have been held in Opposition time. It is a pity that the Government, who control so much of the House's timetable, have not initiated a debate on this topic and allowed hon. Members to have their say. One half-day Opposition debate is probably not sufficient to allow all hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject to do so.
We are all disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister has not attended the debate, to speak and to listen. However, perhaps his absence is understandable, as the Government seem to have some "good news" Ministers


and some "bad news" ones. The Deputy Prime Minister, when he is not in Tokyo or Delhi, seems to be one of those who attends when he has good news or there is money to give out, whereas the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and his sidekick the other Under-Secretary the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), are wheeled out when there is a difficult debate or an Opposition day to deal with. Those two Ministers do their best, but perhaps their best is not good enough.
Today, the more the hon. Member for Streatham tried to describe the PPP, the glummer Labour Members became. They all seemed to realise that, at the next general election, they will have to explain the proposals on the doorstep, and that there is no way the proposals can be explained simply. Recently, while electing a new Blairite leader, even the modernised London Labour party could not stomach this PPP. I therefore tell Ministers to look not at those who are in front of them, but at those who are behind them. It is from behind them that their difficulties will come.
The London underground caters for 3 million trips per weekday, including journey-to-work trips made by 35 per cent. of people in central London. Additionally, about 90 per cent. of tourists use the tube during their stay. The tube annually generates more than £1.1 billion in fare revenue. It is a very important part of our capital's transport infrastructure, and it truly is the only real method of rapidly transporting large numbers of people around London.
We all want London to have good public transport. London is a world-class city and it deserves world-class transport. However, what is the Government's record? Although Ministers have been slow in dealing with the tube, that should not surprise us, as the hallmark of the Government's transport policy has been to think about things rather a lot, but to do very little. We are now three and a half years into this Government, but we are still discussing what Ministers will do to try to improve the situation.
As we learned on the previous Opposition day, this year the tube will receive £753 million—which is a substantial reduction on the £1,035 million that the previous, Conservative Government were investing in 1996–97. The tube needs more investment, but successive Governments have not invested enough in it. The fact, however, is that state-owned enterprises have to compete with hospitals, schools, social services, pensions and many other priorities. Therefore, as we have heard in previous debates, it is no wonder that the tube has occasionally been starved of investment.
A recent MSB survey stated:
the number of regular users who see the Tube as poor value for money has doubled in a year, from 32 per cent. in 1999 to 65 per cent.
As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said in his speech, there are significant problems with the tube. He cited the examples of one in six escalators not working, and a breakdown in the system every 16 minutes.
In a very thoughtful speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster likened being caught in the tube to being in the black hole of Calcutta. I think that we can all appreciate the difficulties that tube travel sometimes entails.
There have been criticisms that the PPP is over-complicated, and I think that hon. Members, after hearing the Minister try to explain the PPP, will agree with those criticisms. There is a question mark over whether the PPP structure will generate sufficient cost savings, and whether the proposals will provide value for money. The Library brief points out that fees for consultants working on the proposals already amount to £60.3 million. Originally, and optimistically, London Transport estimated that the total cost to establish the PPP would be £65 million.
There will also be significant costs involved in monitoring the PPP and negotiating and administering contracts. The hon. Member for Brent, East estimates that the PPP will entail more than 150 various contracts, all of which will provide very substantial work for the lawyers. Additionally, an endemic problem in such proposals is the difficulty of dividing risk between the private sector and the public sector. We also do not know how the proposed penalties and incentives will work.
The length of the contracts—30 years—has also come in for substantial criticism. As it is unrealistic to specify service levels for the next 30 years, there will have to be formal reviews. As Professor Stephen Glaister has argued, there are fundamental difficulties with 30-year contracts.
The hon. Member for Brent, East also made the very good point that some contracts will allow only 95 per cent. of performance targets to be met. There could, therefore, be reductions, in addition to the hoped-for improvements, in performance levels. It is a potential difficulty.
What assumptions have been made about the PPP? London Transport expects that, in the next 20 years, peak-time traffic will grow at 1 per cent. per annum, and that off-peak travel will grow quite significantly. It also assumes that fare income will increase by 40 per cent., mainly because of a greater volume of passengers. The assumptions are key ones. If the increase in passenger numbers occurs at peak time, there will be gridlock. Moreover, I am not quite sure how anyone can argue that there will be a very small increase at peak time and a substantial one at off-peak times.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, the Jubilee line, which the previous, Conservative Government promoted, is an excellent line which has air conditioning and which demonstrates the tube's potential. The PPP does not seem to provide for new lines—new link lines such as the Croxley link line which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned. We all have a shopping list for how best to increase the tube's capacity. I think, however, that the Government's PPP proposals will not deliver the substantial tube improvements that we all want.
Mr. Bob Kiley has been central to today's debate. On the PPP, he said:
I have been trying to figure it out for about five weeks now and still haven't managed it. I have a rule that anything that takes that long to understand is not going to work.


The Minister said earlier that the Government had given information to Mr. Kiley. However, the hon. Member for Brent, East questioned that and said that Mr. Kiley had not been given the most up-to-date contract information. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what information has been given to Mr. Kiley. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, it is interesting that the person who knows how to run such networks is being shut out by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has not had any experience of running such networks.
The Economist has described the PPP as
half baked and either naive or dishonest,
and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs called it a "convoluted compromise". It is not a proposal that finds great favour with many of the bodies that have examined it.
There is a genuine lack of accountability. The Government do not seem to have obeyed the logic of their own arguments on devolution and the restructuring of government. We have a Mayor and an Assembly, and the responsibility for running most services will rest with them. It makes sense that the professional individual employed to run the services should have some input into the setting up of the organisation. I understand Ministers' worries that information may have to be provided. It is strange that we have a former employee of the CIA to whom the Government do not wish to give information.
This ill thought out proposal does not find favour with many people and I would be surprised if it became a reality. The electors of London will have ample opportunity to give their views on it at the next general election.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): It is a pleasure to serve before you today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to be here today, but he has sent his A-team along in the shape of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and me.
We have had an interesting tour of the underground from Upminster to Uxbridge by way of Ruislip, Ealing and Putney. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) wisely chose not to discuss his party's own plans, but chose instead to place his talents at the disposal of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The hon. Gentleman was, I am sure, grateful, but as he has so often demonstrated, he is perfectly capable of looking after himself.
Let me reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary: public-private partnerships are very different from the wholesale privatisations on which the Conservative party is still hooked. In the London Underground PPP, strategic control will be maintained by the public sector, which reports to the Mayor. Private companies will maintain and upgrade the hardware. London Underground will run the network, signals, stations, trains and safety. The Government believe that is the right way to lever in private sector investment and project management expertise while preserving the necessary safeguards that the travelling public need and deserve.
As in so many areas of the public sector, the Conservatives left behind a massive backlog of investment on the tube. They planned to cut tube spending still further, down to £161 million last year and to nought for the current financial year. They were also committed to repeating many of the mistakes that they made with the national railway system. They are so keen on selling off the tube that they have relaunched the policy twice in opposition, making it clear that they intend to break the tube into as many as five pieces.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, we have already provided considerable extra funding to London Transport over the past three years.

Mr. Jenkin: Less than us.

Mr. Mullin: I shall come to that point in a moment. We have prevented any further increase in the investment backlog. We have invested on average more than £500 million in the core of the underground network in each of the past three years, compared to an average of £370 million a year over the lifetime of the previous, Conservative Government. With the additional funding that we have provided, London Transport will be able to invest £3.4 billion in the underground between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
Most important, we have rejected outright privatisation in order to put in place a funding regime that will genuinely deal with the long-term needs of the underground. The London Underground PPP will enable us finally to reverse the historic decline of the tube. In contrast to the fragmented scheme proposed by the official Opposition, our scheme will preserve public accountability and a unified safety structure. Again in contrast to their "flog it and forget it" proposal, the assets will return to the public sector at the end of the contract in a much improved condition.
I shall try to address, in the short time available, some of the points raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked what would happen in the event of a contract failure. Should an infrastructure company fail, there would be a mandatory sale procedure under which the contract would be offered in the market. Ultimately, London Underground could take it back. The hon. Member for Brent, East is right to say that the banks would be recompensed, but he omitted to say that the entire shareholders' equity would be forgone. There would be no question, therefore, of anyone making a profit out of a failure.
On the timing of the safety case, London Underground expects to submit the case in December. It will be up to the Health and Safety Executive to improve it, and we expect that to be done by March 2001. Regarding the timing of the National Audit Office's audit of the public sector comparator, the NAO work will be completed before the selection of a preferred bidder, and it will be published. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have asked some questions, and I am doing my best to reply to them. That is a fairly unusual feature in some winding-up speeches.
The hon. Member for Brent, East mentioned that Mr. Kiley had not yet seen the bids. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—who is not in his place, for reasons that he explained earlier—will understand that this is an evolving relationship involving powerful market sensitivities, and we shall assess our approach in the light of those considerations. As was made clear at the outset, we are anxious to work closely with Mr. Kiley, and we shall do so.
The hon. Members for Brent, East and for Poole (Mr. Syms) suggested that the public sector comparator was out of date. The comparator was produced in March, and it was proper that that should have been done before the receipt of the bids. Obviously, work needs to be done to update the comparator and to reflect changes to the contract documentation. London Underground has offered to take Mr. Kiley through those issues.
The hon. Member for Brent, East said that companies had to meet only 95 per cent. of their performance targets. That is not strictly the case. The 5 per cent. starting benchmark is not a target indicating the level of performance that we expect from the PPP; it is merely a point of reference for determining rates of payment or abatement. To obtain the levels of return that they expect, bidders will need to achieve a substantially higher performance, and to have committed to doing so. The 5 per cent. benchmark applies not to performance across the board but to delays caused by asset failures such as train breakdowns or signal failures. Those vary enormously from year to year. In other words, the benchmark applies not to all the criteria, but only to one.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said that she did not expect any delays, while suggesting a number of ways in which the proposals could be delayed. We do not expect any delays in the PPP programme, but we are not going to be held to a timetable that would allow bidders to hold us to ransom. I am sure that when Opposition Members reflect on that, they will realise that it is sensible.
The hon. Member for Brent, East said, surprisingly, that bonds could be organised in a matter of weeks. I am advised that that is doubtful. Even the Industrial Society's report suggested that it could take up to two years. As the hon. Member for Beckenham said, we cannot afford delays of such length.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was a little cheeky, I thought, in coming forward with a shopping list of projects, given that the previous Government contributed so little to investment in the underground.
The London Underground PPP is well on course to deliver around £13 billion worth of new investment and maintenance during the first 15 years of the contract, with more to follow after that. It will lead to reduced journey times, greater reliability, brighter stations, better trains, more capacity and, above all, greater safety and security. It means that the tube will be publicly owned, publicly run and publicly accountable. The difference is that now it will be properly funded as well.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 287.

Division No. 326]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gray, James


Allan, Richard
Green, Damian


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baker, Norman
Hammond, Philip


Ballard, Jackie
Hancock, Mike


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Harvey, Nick


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hayes, John


Blunt, Crispin
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Horam, John


Brake, Tom
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brazier, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Burns, Simon
Keetch, Paul


Burstow, Paul
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Butterfill, John



Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Key, Robert



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cash, William
Kirkbride,Miss Julie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirtwood, Archy



Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chidgey, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chope, Christopher
Lansley, Andrew


Clappison, James
Letwin, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth  (Rushcliffe)
Lidington,David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Collins, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cotter, Brian
Loughton, Tim


Cran, James
Luff, Peter


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan, Alan
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Duncan Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Faber, David
Maples, John


Fabricant, Michael
Mates, Michael


Fallon, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Fearn, Ronnie
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Flight, Howard
Moss, Malcolm


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Norman, Archie


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Oaten, Mark


Fox, Dr Liam
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fraser, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Gale, Roger
Ottaway, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Page, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Paice, James


Gibb, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Gidley, Sandra
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Redwood, Rt Hon John






Rendel, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Robathan, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robertson, Laurence
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tyler, Paul


Ruffley, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Viggers, Peter


Sanders, Adrian
Wardle, Charles


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waterson, Nigel


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Webb, Steve


Shepherd, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Willis, Phil


Streeter, Gary
Wilshire, David


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Coleman, Iain


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbett, Robin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corston, Jean


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Crausby, David


Battle, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Berry, Roger
Darvill, Keith


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blizzard, Bob
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dobbin, Jim



Donohoe, Brian H


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caplin, Ivor
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Casale, Roger
Efford, Clive


Caton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cawsey, Ian
Ennis, Jeff


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chaytor, David
Fisher, Mark


Clapham, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Flint, Caroline


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Flynn, Paul


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Follett, Barbara


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clwyd, Ann
Gapes, Mike


Coaker, Vernon
Gardiner, Barry


Coffey, Ms Ann
George, Bruce (Walsall S)





Gerrard, Neil
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Grogan, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hain, Peter
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mitchell, Austin


Healey, John
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hesford, Stephen



Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David
Mountford, Kali


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Norris, Dan


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Illsley, Eric
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pearson, Ian


Jamieson, David
Pendry, Tom


Jenkins, Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Raynsford, Nick


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lammy, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rogers, Allan


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Salter, Martin


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Singh, Marsha






Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Soley, Clive
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Spellar, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Ward, Ms Claire


Steinberg, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Stevenson, George
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wills, Michael


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winnick, David


Stringer, Graham
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woodward, Shaun



Woolas, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Worthington, Tony


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wyatt, Derek


Tipping, Paddy



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Noes:


Trickett, Jon
Mr. David Clelland and


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Mike Hall.

Questions accordingly nagatived.

Questions, that proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on Amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes. 177.

Division No. 327]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coaker, Vernon


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coffey, Ms Ann


Banks, Tony
Coleman, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Tony


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beard, Nigel
Corston, Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Betts, Clive



Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dalyell, Tam


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burgon, Colin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Butler, Mrs Christine



Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Denham, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dismore, Andrew


Caplin, Ivor
Dobbin, Jim


Casale, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Caton, Martin
Doran, Frank


Cawsey, Ian
Dowd, Jim


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Drew, David


Chaytor, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Clapham, Michael
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Edwards, Huw


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Efford, Clive





Ellman, Mrs Louise
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Ennis, Jeff
Linton, Martin


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fisher, Mark
Lock, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Love, Andrew


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McAvoy, Thomas


Flint, Caroline
McCabe, Steve


Flynn, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Follett, Barbara
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gapes, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
Mackinlay, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McNamara, Kevin


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWalter, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goggins, Paul
Mallaber, Judy


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Grogan, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hain, Peter
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mitchell, Austin


Healey, John
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hesford, Stephen
 


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David
Mountford, Kali


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mudie, George


Hood, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Norris, Dan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, Bill


Hurst, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Hutton, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Iddon, Dr Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Illsley, Eric
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pendry, Tom


Jamieson, David
Perham, Ms Linda


Jenkins, Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pike, Peter L


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lammy, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Lepper, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Joan
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Salter, Martin
Truswell, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wills, Michael


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stevenson, George
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wood, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woodward, Shaun


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woolas, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. David Clelland and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Allan, Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Amess, David
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Norman
Evans, Nigel


Ballard, Jackie
Faber, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fabricant, Michael


Bercow, John
Fallon, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fearn, Ronnie


Blunt, Crispin
Flight, Howard


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brake, Tom
Fraser, Christopher


Brand, Dr Peter
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Breed, Colin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gidley, Sandra


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burstow, Paul
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gray, James



Green, Damian


Cash, William
Greenway, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Grieve, Dominic



Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chidgey, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chope, Christopher
Hammond, Philip


Clappison, James
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Collins, Tim
Heald, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cotter, Brian
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Horam, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael





Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Laurence


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Ruffley, David


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Keetch, Paul
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian



Shepherd, Richard


Key, Robert
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Spring, Richard


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Steen, Anthony


Lansley, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Letwin, Oliver
Swayne, Desmond


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Syms, Robert


Lidington, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Luff, Peter
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tonge, Dr Jenny


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Trend, Michael


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walter, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Wardle, Charles


Malins, Humfrey
Waterson, Nigel


Maples, John
Webb, Steve


Mates, Michael
Wells, Bowen


May, Mrs Theresa
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Whittingdale, John


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Norman, Archie
Wilkinson, John


Oaten, Mark
Willetts, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Willis, Phil


Öpik, Lembit
Wilshire, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Pickles, Eric
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael



Prior, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, John
Mr. Stephen Day and


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's implementation of its manifesto commitment to create a Public Private Partnership for London Underground which will bring in £8 billion of new investment and up to £5 billion worth of maintenance over the next fifteen years-leading to faster, more reliable journeys and a safer, more attractive Underground of the kind Londoners deserve; supports the doubling of the resources available to the Mayor for transport in London over the next three years; condemns the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport and in particular their erratic investment in London Underground, which left it with a £1.2 billion backlog; and deplores the Official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground, which will fundamentally undermine public accountability.

Millennium Dome

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Before I call the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) to move the Opposition motion, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the financial mismanagement of the New Millennium Experience Company; notes with concern that the cost to Lottery funds has exceeded the budget by £229 million; believes that this represents a serious waste of public funds; and regrets that Ministers have neither apologised nor accepted responsibility for the failure of this national project
The House last had an opportunity to debate the dome on 21 February. On that occasion, the House approved a Government amendment that expressed the view that the millennium experience represented
an excellent celebration for the people of this country and a tangible and enduring legacy for future generations
The Government majority also welcomed
the announcement that the New Millennium Experience Company team will be introducing improvements which deliver even greater value for money both to the paying visitor and to the Millennium Commission.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1348.]
That is what the Government required Labour Members to support, and they duly did so, making themselves look absurd.
Tonight, we are offering those Members the chance to redeem themselves by supporting our motion, which reflects both the facts and the vast body of public opinion.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: I suppose so.

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman—so gracious and courteous—was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former dome Minister, Virginia Bottomley—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that he should refrain from using the name of any Member to whom he refers.

Mr. MacShane: When pulchritude and the name go together, I dare make a mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) is a former Secretary of State for National Heritage. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was her PPS at the time when she promoted the dome and when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—now Leader of the Opposition—crawled on his knees to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—to ask for our support. If the hon. Member for East Surrey has problems with the dome, will he confess his own involvement in it and apologise for it?

Mr. Ainsworth: That was hardly worth giving way for, but I am delighted to have the pivotal role that I played in the past Conservative Administration recognised at last.
One of my proudest memories is that I had the honour to serve as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). If the hon. Gentleman has followed matters at all, he will know that I was indeed—I confess it freely—an enthusiast for the dome project at that time. Unlike Labour Members, however, I am quite prepared to admit that the whole thing has been an unmitigated failure and to express my regrets about that
.
Some £628 million of lottery money has been wasted. The Ministers responsible have, at least in the eyes of the public, been disgraced. A lot of water has flowed under the closed millennium bridge since we last debated the dome, and hundreds of millions of pounds worth of lottery money with it.
The original lottery funding was £399 million; about a year ago, the project received an extra draw-down facility—repayable—of £50 million; it received £60 million in February; £29 million in May; £43 million in August; and an extra £47 million in September. That is the shameful record of the dome's miserable year.
Getting to the truth about what went wrong with the project has been a slow and painful process.

Mr. Steve McCabe: rose—

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman rises on cue.

Mr. McCabe: The hon. Gentleman tells us that he is convinced that the dome has been an unmitigated disaster. Did he support his former boss, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), when she extended the life of the Millennium Commission in order to cover the funding because the Conservatives knew that their financial projections would not hold up?

Hon. Members: That is a good question.

Mr. Ainsworth: It is a very silly question, because no one in their right mind could have imagined that, under Labour, the project would have cost an extra £239 million.
Getting to the truth about the project has been slow and painful, but one by one, like rotten teeth, the facts are beginning to be extracted. It was not the fault of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport but an indictment of Ministers that, after numerous inquiries, last summer the Committee was forced to admit that
it has been virtually impossible to ascertain the precise budgetary position of the New Millennium Experience Company.
We have pointed out previously that the whole scheme was characterised by a lack of candour that ill befits a major public project. The problem began with the appointment of the man who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as sole shareholder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] We should have realised that trouble was coming because, when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, he complained to the Select Committee about the "excessive accountability" of the dome. The Government do not like accountability. But the public will hold them accountable.
The report of the National Audit Office, which was published last week and which is to be the subject of detailed consideration by the Public Accounts Committee


on Wednesday, at last revealed something of the truth. In clinical prose, it charted the decline and fall of new Labour's flagship project and shed light on a sordid tale of expediency, vanity, half-truths and evasions.
The Minister who has been responsible for the dome for the past 23 months is not in this House—indeed, Lord Falconer is not accountable to this House. When the right hon. Member for Hartlepool was forced to resign his former ministerial position—in short-lived disgrace—we urged the Government to appoint a non-controversial figure in his place: someone with relevant operational skills, who knew something about running a visitor attraction. Instead, we got a man whose only previous claim to fame was that he once shared a flat with the Prime Minister and had apparently had something to do with a May ball at Cambridge.

Ms Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who, in the most offensive terms, castigated Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in opposition for rubbishing the dome for cynical political gain? Is that not exactly what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do?

Mr. Ainsworth: Absolutely not; I am trying to give the House an opportunity to express a verdict on the dome. No doubt it will do so later.
Lord Falconer's responsibilities for the dome are helpfully set out in the NAO report. Those responsibilities include
setting the strategic direction of the company and monitoring it in terms of cost.
That failed. Lord Falconer had responsibility for content—failed; for national impact—failed; for legacy—failing; and for effective management—pull the other one.
The report makes it clear that, since August last year, Lord Falconer attended 16 of the 22 board meetings and was represented at two. He must have known what was going on, but when PricewaterhouseCoopers produced its report on the dome in September, with damning evidence of the sorry state of the project's finances, he wrote—on 21 September—that he was "shocked" by its findings. Despite his assiduous attendance record as a shadow director, was he the only person who did not know how bad things had become?
On 20 February, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to Lord Falconer stating that
It seems possible that the board failed to take decisive action until after a date when the company became technically insolvent.
What did Lord Falconer think about that? On 25 May this year, after the dome had been granted a further £29 million of lottery money, why did he think that the directors had lined up to ask for indemnities for any wrongful trading actions brought against them by creditors? Did he think they were making that application for fun?
How did Lord Falconer respond to the letter from the chairman of NMEC of 14 July informing him that the finances had further deteriorated, or to the information that the commission's view was that the company might run out of money within two weeks and might require an additional £45 million? Did he think that it was all a storm in a Chianti bottle?
In the light of what Lord Falconer must have known, how truthful was it of him to tell the House of Lords on 17 July that the company was trading solvently? Six days after the warnings about the need for additional funds, he told Parliament:
I repeat: the National Millennium Experience Company is confident that it will deliver the project within its lifetime budget of £758 million.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 1162.]
How truthful was that?
How did the Secretary of State feel about those bland reassurances? What action did he take to the set the record straight? As chairman of the Millennium Commission, he has acted as banker to the project for the past three and a half years. Twice, his accounting officers advised that granting the dome extra money would not represent a proper or prudent use of public funds. Twice, the Secretary of State has been party to overruling that advice.
The Government claimed that it was in the national interest to bail out the dome. It was not. It was in the interest of the Labour party and, in particular, of the Prime Minister in whose image the whole project was fashioned by his cronies the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Lord Falconer.
What use are reassurances from the Secretary of State in any case? When he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who had rightly inquired about the additional grant of £60 million that had just been made, the Secretary of State said:
I strongly point out to the hon. Gentleman that such funding will and must be repaid.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 764.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that clear assurance? Will the money be repaid? The right hon. Gentleman will not answer because—like the remainder of the £230 million overspend—the money will not be repaid.

Mr. John Maples: My hon. Friend sets out a damning indictment of the stewardship of Lord Falconer and of the Secretary of State. However, might not Lord Falconer say that what was really wrong with the dome was the rubbish that was put inside it—the trite content? Is that not entirely the fault of the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The content of the dome is a serious disappointment; it is a bossy mish-mash of reproving statements, improving statements and childish gimmicks. If the content had been half way decent, there would not have been such a problem with visitor numbers.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend recollect that the taxpayer had to pay for the visit to the United States of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool so that he could see how the Disneyland attractions were run because he had sole charge of the design of the dome's contents? Did we receive any value for that money? Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman could not run an attraction as well as Mickey Mouse.

Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend is right. The visit to Disneyland showed clearly the right hon. Gentleman's involvement in the content and his responsibility for its failure.

Mr. Clive Efford: If the content of the dome is so bad, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that 88 per cent. of visitors said that they were very satisfied with their visit and with the content?

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman raises a sensitive point. Clearly, if the number of people attending the dome had gone half way towards expectations, the Government would not have this problem now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If Labour Members will give me a chance, I will answer. It is not that difficult to have a good day out with the children. One can have a good day out with the children in Hyde park, but it did not cost £400 million or £600 million to develop Hyde park so that people could have a decent time there.

Mr. Paul Clark: rose—

Mr. Ainsworth: I shall not give way just yet.
The Secretary of State's failure to answer my question about whether any of the money will be repaid has been noted by the House. In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), the right hon. Gentleman said that he had
made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget now set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau has confirmed on a number of occasions that he will not be returning to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.—[Official Report, 10 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 612.]
Well, £90 million pounds later, we know the value of that assurance.

Mr. David Heath: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I must say that the words "pot" and "kettle" come to mind. Will he consider the comment of the National Audit Office:
By June 1996 it had become clear that the private sector would not accept the risk associated with mounting the exhibition …?
On mature reflection, does the hon. Gentleman not think that that might have been the right time at which to pull the plug on this deplorable effort so that we would not incur further enormous liabilities?

Mr. Ainsworth: No. The hon. Gentleman—who, as far as I am aware, has never been responsible for running anything—is talking nonsense. If he is patient, I shall come to the point about who is responsible for the failure of the project.
A little space should be found in the hall of shame for the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who is sitting on the Front Bench smiling. In May, she told the House:
The investment in the millennium dome has a huge halo effect round the country.—[Official Report, 8 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 486.]
In July, when I asked her whether anyone in the Government would apologise, she said:
There is no need to apologise.—[Official Report, 10 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 608.]
Her tone was a little different last week when she said:
The Government are the first to acknowledge that the dome has not been the success for which everyone hoped—[Official Report, 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 9.]

Despite that, we have yet to hear an apology from any member of the Government for the deplorable waste of public funds that have been sunk into the dome. It has been obvious to everyone that the project has been a disaster from the opening night, if not before.

Mr. Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman asks for an apology, but I have yet to hear him refer to the Opposition's record. I want to give him the opportunity to confirm something for the record. Will he confirm that his right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, was a member of the GEN 36 Committee, the Cabinet Sub-Committee that was involved in the planning, financing and co-ordination of the millennium dome?

Mr. Ainsworth: That was another rather silly point. There is no secret about the fact that the dome project was conceived under the Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah !"] Labour Members think that they have discovered something new, but it is utterly risible to suggest that we are trying to pretend that we had nothing to do with the conception of the project, which none the less suffered a hideous trauma between its conception and its birth under this Government.

Mr. Andrew Reed: On that point, can the hon. Gentleman name the date by which Conservative Members suddenly thought that the project had become a disaster? Will he also tell the House exactly how much private sector money the previous Government had managed to raise by 1 May 1997?

Mr. Ainsworth:: The hon. Gentleman is clearly unaware that, after the general election in 1997, and throughout 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and I were constantly approached by Ministers, including Lord Falconer, begging for our support for the project. The one thing that I seriously regret is that we did not urge the Government to cancel the project while there was still time to do so—although I doubt very much whether they would have taken our advice.
Everyone knows that the project has been a disaster for at least the past two and a half years. We warned Ministers that it was going wrong, but they did not heed our advice. The Deputy Prime Minister once famously said:
If we can't make this work we're not much of a Government.
He was unaware that things were going wrong. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the right hon. Gentleman said in his inimitable prose:
On the right hon. Gentleman's point about my comments on whether the dome would be a success and that that should be a measure of the Government's competence, I happen to believe that it has been a success.—[Official Report, 24 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 965.]
The Deputy Prime Minister said that midway through the year, when the dome had already received two injections of extra lottery funds. By then it had consumed an additional £139 million.
The Government's attempts to portray the dome as a success have been farcical, but not as farcical as their latest attempts to pin all the blame for everything that


has gone wrong on the previous Government. Their first reaction to the project's failure was to go into denial. After all, in the words of the Prime Minister, it was to be
the first paragraph of my next election manifesto.
After the Prime Minister had said that, the Government knew that they could not allow the dome to fail. But they did allow it to fail and, when all the spin and the hype were overwhelmed by the cold sad truth of squandered money and wasted opportunity, they turned like cornered rats and said that it was all our fault.

Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have had to be a pretty good project to attract people to London from the north-west of England? It would cost families quite a sum of money to make such a visit. I have only spoken to five people from my constituency who have been to the dome. Is it not natural that they should compare the money that has been wasted on the dome with what could have been achieved for schools, education and law and order in the north-west?

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the content of the dome had been up to scratch, people would have travelled from far and wide to see it.

Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has already had his chance.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and tell us whether he will scrap the new opportunities fund, which puts money precisely into health, education and the environment?

Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State goes on and on about that point. He will have to be patient: we will announce our policies at the appropriate time.
Nobody believes the Government on the subject of the dome: nobody believes them when they say that it is a success and nobody believes them when they try to blame us. What people see is a Government who are prepared to take the credit for everything and responsibility for nothing.
We know from the National Audit Office report that, after the election, the Government reviewed the entire project. We know that they reviewed the visitor number forecasts and that they ignored the advice of Deloitte Touche and of Millennium Commission officials. The Government decided on a forecast of 12 million visitors. The Government are responsible for the visitor forecast and they are responsible for the content, for the budget and for the decision by Lord Falconer to insist on 1 million free school visits against the advice of the board. That blew a huge hole in the dome's finances. The Government have also been responsible for the appalling media relations: both before and during this year, the dome has been a public relations nightmare.

Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to put his hand up and admit responsibility for

the gross financial mismanagement of the dome, I would be willing to give way, but I suspect that he is not going to do that.
We also know why the Government decided to go ahead with the project. The Prime Minister himself ordained that they should go ahead at the fateful Cabinet meeting on 19 June 1997. Despite the misgivings of a majority of the Cabinet, the Government went ahead with the project. Despite the Chancellor's rather ludicrous suggestion that the project should meet five key tests—we have heard that somewhere before—the Prime Minister announced the same day that the project would proceed. He said:
In the year 2000 all the eyes of the world will be on Britain—
Would that they might avert them now! He continued:
This is our chance to make a statement of faith in our capacity to do things bigger and better than anyone else.
The Government's attempts to blame the Conservatives for their own failings are undignified and would be laughable were they not so contemptible and cowardly. Indeed, the Prime Minister's antics have become frankly comic, although his behaviour is more akin to that of Alan B'stard than to that of Jim Hacker. We now know that Lord Falconer has not resigned because he is acting as a human shield for the Prime Minister.
The Foreign Secretary summed up the position when he said on 19 June 1997:
We can always blame the Tories if we stop now. If we go ahead we'll have to take the blame if the whole lot goes wrong.

Mr. John Greenway: Exactly right.

Mr. Ainsworth: Indeed, but that does not say much for the Foreign Secretary's political morality.
The future of the dome is yet again uncertain. Doubts have persisted over whether the proposed deal with Legacy will go ahead. The task facing the Government is to ensure that, by selling the dome, they achieve a maximum return to lottery players and a maximum national gain in terms of long-term jobs and regeneration on the site. It is not possible to understand how that will be achieved by engaging in a hole-in-the-corner discussion with a single bidder which happens to have donated large sums to the Labour party and the Secretary of State's constituency association.
The site's future should be thrown open to fresh competition. Retaining the dome itself should not be a condition of the sale. Most people would rather have some of their money back after this dreadful year than see the dome retained as a symbol of a Prime Minister's vanity. As it is, there is a real risk that in the coming months the dome will stand idle and empty, a mute but powerful reminder of the cynicism, cronyism, arrogance and wastefulness of an incompetent and discredited Government. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool said that the closing ceremony would
reflect the full breadth and success of the celebrations that we have planned.—[Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 473]
How right he was for once. On 31 December, someone will quietly switch off the lights for the last time—but the memory of the dome's one appalling year will stay fresh in the public's mind and they will not forgive this Government.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof
welcomes the publication of the National Audit Office report, which gives a detailed account of events at the Dome; agrees that politicians of all parties involved in the project share responsibility both for the successes in regenerating this depressed part of South East London and its failings to reach its original visitor estimates; and deplores the decision by Her Majesty's Opposition not to support the original bi-partisan nature of this national project.
I begin by offering you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my warm congratulations on the assumption of your august office. I am sure that every hon. Member would join me in that. May I also say that, as ever, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the dome on the Floor of the House.
I was somewhat surprised that the Opposition decided to pre-empt the Public Accounts Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday. I very much regret that they are effectively undermining the PAC deliberations by tabling a motion that asks the House to anticipate the PAC.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State makes a fair point. Will he guarantee us another Opposition day before Christmas?

Mr. Smith: The allocation of Opposition days is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Their precise content is entirely a matter for the Opposition
The Government have already welcomed the National Audit Office report, which gives a detailed and accurate account of the origins of the dome and of the events during its year of operation. We welcome the PAC's inquiry and we will work fully with it.
We recognise the problems that the dome has faced. In particular, it is a matter of great regret to all of us who had high hopes for the project that the original visitor target will not be met. That has been at the root of all the dome's problems this year. It has led to a 65 per cent. drop in visitor revenue and the consequent need for additional lottery funding. It has placed enormous strain on NMEC as it sought to attract visitors by introducing better marketing and developing the product on offer.

Mr. Redwood: When Ministers said at various times throughout the year that no more money would be available, were they misleading the House or was the company trading when it was insolvent? Which is it?

Mr. Smith: It is neither. When I informed the House of the comments made by Mr. P-Y Gerbeau in July—the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) referred to this—I was reporting exactly what Mr. Gerbeau had said about his intentions and hopes for future visitor numbers.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: In that case, was Mr. P-Y Gerbeau misleading the Secretary of State?

Mr. Smith: We now know with hindsight that Mr. Gerbeau was wrong. That is public knowledge.
In the conclusions to the NAO report, the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
it is clear that the main cause of the financial difficulties is the failure to achieve the visitor numbers and income required

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Mr. Keith Bales, a former senior Disney executive, told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 1997 that no one on the board of NMEC
has ever run, managed, designed or promoted in any way whatsoever a major international leisure attraction.
He went on to say that he did not believe in the visitor numbers. Why, therefore, has it taken the Government three years to go cap in hand back to Disney to get professional help to sort out the problems? Was it because the Government were so arrogant that they knew best? Does the Secretary of State think that he should have gone to Disney sooner?

Mr. Smith: No, but that is the first sensible point that the Opposition have made this evening. There is a genuine issue about whether it is right for the Government to seek to run, or to be involved in the running of, a visitor attraction. We have recognised for some time that we got that wrong. We have accepted that. Bringing in Mr. Gerbeau in February this year was almost certainly bringing him in too late. We now know that. One lesson that we have to learn from the story of the dome is that, with a project of this size and scale, we need to ensure that the experts are brought in to run it from an early date.

Mr. Ainsworth: May I take the Secretary of State back to the inaccurate information that he says P-Y Gerbeau gave to him. If P-Y's information was wrong, are we to take it that the company was trading insolvently, albeit without P-Y Gerbeau's knowledge? If that is the case, what does it say about the competence of Lord Falconer, who is the shareholder and Minister responsible?

Mr. Smith: The issue of trading insolvently is appropriate only if a company has no reasonable expectation of being able to trade itself out of insolvency. Each time Lord Falconer and others came to Parliament on this matter, there was every expectation either that the issue of inadequate funds was about to be resolved or that it had just been resolved. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman needs to take into account.

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No, I must make some progress
I agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General's conclusions. He is right to identify the reduction in visitor numbers as the main source of the dome's difficulties, although there were other issues, to which I shall come in a moment or two.
It is of course very disappointing that the dome will not meet its original visitor target of 12 million. Since the Millennium Commission set out its guidelines for a national exhibition in 1995, many Members on both sides of the House have shared its aspirations for an exhibition to rival those of 1851 and 1951. Those guidelines suggested that the millennium exhibition should attract between 15 million and 30 million people. That was a


laudable ambition, but one which, with the benefit of hindsight, we know to have been seriously over-optimistic. We must all—on both sides of the House—put up our hands and admit that we got it wrong. I am happy to do so. Indeed, all of us on both sides of the House need to accept that there were things about the project, especially the visitor number projections, that we simply got wrong.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Smith: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that, in 1995, the Millennium Commission, chaired by the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), set an aim of 15 million visitors; that in July 1995, the aim had become between 15 million and 30 million visitors; that on 18 January 1996, the target was 10 million visitors; that in February of that year, the target was between 10.9 million and 16 million visitors; and that, by 11 December 1996, the target had become 13.5 million visitors. That is the story of expectations throughout that period, so we shall take no lessons from the Conservative party about the mistakes that were undoubtedly made. Members on both sides of the House were responsible for getting it wrong.

Mr. Gale: Having come from "We'll take the credit" to "Let's please share the blame", the Secretary of State should be referred to page 4 of the National Audit Office report, which we are in effect debating. Referring to May 1997, paragraph 16 states:
At that stage, however, final decisions had not been made on the Dome's contents, on ticket prices, on marketing strategies, and on whether there would be access to the area by car for the purposes of dropping off and picking up.
In other words, every major decision, other than the decision to have the spiked hut, was taken by this Government. if there were a shred of honour left in the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Culture, Media and Sport, or in Lord Falconer, all three would resign.

Mr. Smith: I hesitate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the decision to build the dome was taken under the previous Government; that the decision to build it at Greenwich was taken under the previous Conservative Government; that the original chairman and chief executive of the dome company were appointed by the previous Government; that the corporate structure was decided by the previous Government; that the use of lottery money to support the project was decided under the previous Government; and that the role of the shareholder was created under the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is simply unworthy of his usual high standards.

Mr. Maples: The long list of things that the Secretary of State said were decided by the previous Government omitted the content of the dome. I took my family, along with another family, to the dome very early in January. We all thought that we would have had a lot more fun at the local fair and learned a lot more at the science museum. The problem with the project is not the concept, the space or the wonderful tube ride to get there but the

trite content. Nobody blames the Secretary of State for that; he is much too civilised to have passed off such rubbish as appropriate content. It is surely the fault of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he ought to be answering this debate.

Mr. Smith: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is a fan of the science museum and that he can now take his children to it for free following our decision. His experience differs markedly from 88 per cent. of visitors to the dome, who come away saying that they have had a really enjoyable time and would recommend it to their friends.
In the context of the history of the project, I find the attitude of the hon. Member for East Surrey and his party leader pretty unedifying. One—the hon. Member for East Surrey—was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and the other sat on the Cabinet Committee that decided to take forward the exhibition under the previous Government. When the previous Government set up that Committee, the then Secretary of State announced on 28 February 1996 that, in order to ensure that the Government's participation in that significant national event was well planned and co-ordinated, she had asked the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of that ministerial group from the outset; the public record confirms it. I do not think it unreasonable, in the light of the Opposition's comments in this debate, to point out that they were in it from the start.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Smith: No, I want to make some progress.
Now we have an Opposition, including the hon. Gentleman, who engage in what I would call not so much shuttle diplomacy as shuttle expediency: when something is going well, one goes ahead with it, giving it all one's support and praising it to the skies; but when it turns out three months later to be unpopular with the media, here are the Opposition going in the opposite direction, saying that the project is a complete disaster and was nothing whatever to do with them in the first place.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what he said, not in 1995 or 1996 but in the middle of 1999:
I enjoy visiting the dome, and I have seen a major transformation on that site since it was a barren wasteland.—[Official Report, 18 June 1999; Vol. 335, c. 674-75.]
Not to be outdone, the Leader of the Opposition said of the dome on 23 December 1999:
I think it's now the job of all politicians to make a success of it. So we shall go there and join in the party.
Perhaps most significant of all, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey, said when presenting to the House in December 1996 the decision to go ahead with the dome:
we believe that the potential for tourism is important, not only nationally—15 million visitors are expected—but internationally.—[Official Report, 28 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 888-90.]

Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is merely reiterating the point that the Conservatives had the original vision for the dome. He knows perfectly well that we did


not want this thing to be the failure that it has become. We warned the Government that, if they went ahead as they were going, it might be such a failure. It is their fault that the project has become a failure. At least we can recognise that, now that it has.
Has the Secretary of State read the National Audit Office report? If he looks at paragraph 1.27, he will see that all his points fall away. It states clearly:
The then Official Opposition agreed to these arrangements, but reserved the right to review every aspect of the delivery of the project if elected to Government. The new Government undertook such a review
The figures were the Secretary of State's; it was the Government's decision.

Mr. Smith: Not only the original concept but the structure of the company, the decision to go ahead with it and the original visitor number expectations, which are at the heart of the NAO report, were put in place by the previous Government.
The hon. Member for East Surrey has spoken about my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The previous Government recognised the national significance of the project by appointing a Minister the sole shareholder in the operating company. We retained those arrangements because we believe that it was right that a national project of such scale should be subject to ministerial accountability. As an NMEC shareholder, Lord Falconer is accountable to Parliament through the other place for the Millennium Experience. That means that he needs to take an active interest in the project's development and progress along the critical path. However, that is very different from interfering in day-to-day management, which is the responsibility of NMEC's board.
I especially deplore the cheap political point scoring to which the Opposition have sunk—

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mr. Smith: Right on cue, here is the right hon. Gentleman to make more cheap political points.

Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State gave an interesting answer earlier: he said that the company was not trading when insolvent because it had a reasonable expectation of getting more money—and, as we know, the money came from the Millennium Commission, the taxpayer and the millennium fund contributor. Is he not telling us, therefore, that the Minister was saying one thing to the company to reassure it that money would be made available, and another to Parliament, which was told that no money would be made available?

Mr. Smith: No, I do not agree with that analysis.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: Yes, because it is the right hon. Lady, but this must be the last time.

Mrs. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all the public servants who have worked on the

project bitterly resent the degree to which the Labour party has tried to party politicise the dome events? It tried to make it a glorious Sheffield rally by imposing Labour party imagery and ideology on the project—even launching it at the People's Palace, where Labour celebrated its campaign victory. A million free tickets for schoolchildren were given away in the face of advice from those within the organisation. The Labour party lost public support for the project by trying to turn it into a Labour party legacy.

Mr. Smith: No, if any party is trying to make party political capital out of the dome, it is the Conservative party.
Lord Falconer sets the strategic direction of the dome and monitors NMEC's progress against the criteria that we set it. He has been tireless in his defence of the dome and in his work to raise awareness of its achievements. He has shown leadership in standing by the dome's loyal staff, in visiting it regularly and in monitoring its progress through turbulent times. His job is an important one and he is doing it well in the teeth of enormous difficulty and flak. It is certainly not in the interests of the British people that he should resign.
Lord Falconer has never lost sight of the good things about the dome, and nor should we. Despite the undeniable problems identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the dome is a remarkable achievement. For a start, it is a stunning building, recognised as a great construction achievement and a triumph of British engineering for which the engineers, Buro Happold, won the prestigious Royal Academy of Engineering MacRobert award, which is Britain's premier prize for engineering.
Greenwich council, which has supported the project from the outset, is proud of what it has meant to one of London's poorest boroughs—and so it should be. In less than four years, the largest track of derelict urban wasteland in Europe has been transformed into a busy, attractive place—one where people want to live, in one of the new homes in the millennium village; a place where they want to shop, in Sainsbury's new store, which has just won a national award for environmental sustainability; a place where they want to stay in the new hotel and come to enjoy themselves at the millennium dome.

Mr. Norman Baker: Given his enthusiasm for the structure, which I share, will the Secretary of State guarantee that the millennium dome will not be bulldozed?

Mr. Smith: I very much hope that the dome will not be pulled down, but the ministerial team—which, of course, does not include me—that will determine the future legacy of the dome will have to take into account the iconic nature of the structure, the regeneration effect that it can have and the best possible return to the lottery player and taxpayer. Those considerations must be carefully balanced by the team.
The construction phase of the dome and other developments on the peninsula have created employment for 8,700 people, and 5,500 are employed in the operation. Greenwich council predicts that 30,000 permanent jobs will be created in the borough within seven years as a result of the investment on the peninsula. The council is right to be proud of all that has been achieved.
The people who work at the dome are also proud of what they have achieved. They know that they are doing a good job because people tell them so: as I said, in a recent poll, 88 per cent. of visitors said that they had enjoyed their day at the dome and 94 per cent. that they had enjoyed the millennium show. Those satisfaction ratings are something of which to be proud, as is the fact that the dome has attracted more visitors this year than any other paying attraction in the UK: the dome's 4.5 million paying visitors to date mean that, after only 10 months, it has attracted almost twice the yearly total of visitors to the next most popular attraction, Alton Towers.
I am also proud of the dome work force—not only because of the way in which they have stood up to the trials and tribulations of the operating year, but because of the unfailing courtesy, good humour and professionalism that they have displayed throughout. Other people are also proud of the dome. Let me give just one example. Pat Nunn of Ossett in Yorkshire wrote to The Guardian on 28 October to say:
I went to the Millennium Dome expecting rubbish—
she had been listening to the hon. Member for East Surrey too much—
but what I found was impressive. If there was a gold medal for knocking things, we British would win every time. I'm no flag-waver, but I felt proud of what I saw and experienced
We must remember that the millennium celebrations are not only about the dome. The vision for celebrating the millennium includes not only capital projects, but more than 1,000 large-scale community projects throughout the UK under the umbrella of the millennium festival, and more than 12,000 awards for all so far distributed to community arts, sports, heritage and charity projects in every part of the UK. Of the 180 capital projects funded by the Millennium Commission, 90 are now complete, and two thirds of the 3,118 umbrella projects have now opened. Recent openings include "Turning the Tide", which is a wonderful project restoring England's only stretch of magnesium limestone coastline in Durham—restoring the beaches, removing coal waste and derelict structures and creating new cycle paths and walkways to enhance the area's accessibility. ECOS at Ballymena is a new 57 hectare town park and environmental visitor and education centre, which will house the Northern Ireland environmental information centre. The national wildlife centre in Liverpool is a centre for creative conservation, promoting the use of wild flowers in the wider process of regeneration.
None the less, we all need to learn the valuable lessons about the assessment and management of capital projects that the dome project has taught us, some of which are set out in the National Audit Office report. I identify four key lessons. First, adopt a clear management structure. An alternative structure to deliver the exhibition from the outset might well have achieved a different outcome. The tight time frame meant that no acceptable alternative was available for the dome, but, for the future, we know that a less complex, more directly accountable structure is probably better.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend mentions the tight time frame. Is it not absolutely remarkable that the dome building was ready on time and open when it needed to be open, on a fixed timetable? By contrast, we have the disaster of the British

Library project, whose cost doubled and exploded and the building was not nearly ready on time—and that happened under the Conservatives.

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the remarkable achievement whereby the millennium dome was completed and made ready for opening. Everyone knew the time frame that had to be adhered to.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: The second lesson is to bring in the experts. Managers with experience of running large-scale visitor attractions should have been engaged by NMEC for the operational year. All parties acknowledged that when the project was reviewed in February this year, and undoubtedly we should have recognised it.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I said to the right hon. Lady that I was giving way for the last time, but because she is so persistent, I will allow her to make another intervention.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Does he feel able to pay credit to Jennie Page?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I am delighted to pay credit to Jennie Page for having achieved the construction of the dome by 31 December 1999 in the very efficient way in which that was done.
The third lesson is to make prudent estimates at the outset. We have already acknowledged that the initial visitor number estimates of 12 million were too high, although experts said at the time that the figure was not unrealistic. We have learned from that, and I am pleased to say that now, for every major capital project, the Millennium Commission examines the business plan and the operational expectations in detail and tests carefully whether they are correct.
The result, I am pleased to say, has been enormously successful. The Eden project is now 70 per cent. over its visitor number target. The Lowry in Salford is 54 per cent. over its target. Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh is 32 per cent. over its target. The national botanic garden of Wales is 26 per cent. over its target. The Big Idea in Irvine is 17 per cent. over its target, and @, Bristol is 11 per cent. over its target.
The fourth lesson that we need to learn concerns risk assessment and risk management. We have always recognised that the dome project was risky. My Department is now working hard to improve our performance—everyone's performance—on risk analysis, to ensure that everything possible is done to minimise risks similar to those that have arisen during the Millennium Experience project.
What I have said will, I hope, help to redress the balance of what the hon. Member for East Surrey laid before the House. I also hope that it gives him some pause


for thought. It is easy and cheap politics to knock a project which his previous boss described in 1996 as
Britain's shopfront as we go into a new century.—[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 607.]
We shared that vision. We are, of course, sad that the visitor numbers have been lower than hoped for, but pleased that those who came have enjoyed themselves. The regeneration benefits will be felt in the area for years to come.
What we do not want to do is engage in the tawdry hypocrisy of praising something one year, damning it the next, pretending that it is nothing whatever to do with us, and failing to address the serious wider issues of governance and risk management that are genuinely thrown into the public domain by this project and by what has happened. That serious task is one that we are taking forward and will continue to take forward.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I can claim to be the only Member who has been involved in every stage of the Millennium Commission and the saga of the dome. Indeed, in a rather unusual circumstance, I was the Deputy Prime Minister who negotiated many of the arrangements of government that have been discussed today.
As a millennium commissioner, on the change of Government I was consulted by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and as a result of that was asked whether I would remain in something of the same position as I had held in government, in order to preserve the continuity of the decision-making processes that had been established and were under way.
Consequently, I have seen the inside story. With hindsight, all of us would do things differently. One thing that I would not do differently in any way was the decision to attempt to replicate the great historic successes of 1851 and 1951. Nor would I change the decision to use the opportunity for the dome investment to regenerate one of the poorest parts of the London borough of Greenwich.
I feel particularly strongly about that because in 1979, I made one of the more regrettable decisions of my career: I left out the sites at Greenwich and Lewisham from the decision that we took to take over land in the five London boroughs to the north of the river. Fifteen years later, the Greenwich site was as derelict as on the day I left it out
I have thus seen matters from the inside. It would, I suppose, be possible for me not to participate in this debate, which is inspired by my political party, but it would, I think, be less than frank and honourable to the House, which is entitled to hear the views that I have developed.
I shall keep the House for only a moment or two, and explain, as the Secretary of State said, that if the accounting officer of the Millennium Commission is to appear before the Public Accounts Committee in the next few days, and if the accounting officer for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to report on events for which I had responsibility, it is incumbent on me not to make their task more complicated than it is bound to be.
There are three issues on which I shall speak: first, the all-party, non-party atmosphere in which the project was conceived and delivered; secondly, the decision about the 12 million attendance; and thirdly, the after-use of the Greenwich peninsula.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon(Mr. Major), when he was Prime Minister, asked me to become a millennium commissioner. He named a number of colleagues with whom I have worked over the years. Some of them have gone and been replaced, but the one certainty about the decision that he took is that the commission would be non-party, all-party. To this day, I could not tell the House in all honesty which way members of the Millennium Commission would vote in a general election.
I know that the late Lord Montague—Michael Montague as he was then—was appointed to the Millennium Commission as a nominee of the Labour party, so from the earliest days, clearly, one of our members was appointed in order to ensure that the Labour party believed in and was on side with all the decisions of the commission. He became a Labour life peer before his premature death after the election.
I now know, of course, that Patricia Scotland QC has become a Labour working peer, but when she initially became a member of the Millennium Commission, I did not know that she was a member or supporter of the Labour party.
Listening to the comments in the commission, I could guess at the political affiliation of one or two of my colleagues, but certainly not all of them. I can never remember any stage, in any of our discussions from that moment to this, when party politics or party allegiances played any part whatever in the decision-making processes in which we engaged.
When we faced a significant hurdle in the life of the dome—that is, the general election campaign—I became preoccupied with the uncertainty inevitably created in the circumstances. There was a moment—I have been critical of this matter in public—when I thought that the Labour party would stand back from decisions of which it had clearly been aware and which it had supported—decisions made after consultations with those on the Labour Front Bench.
So preoccupied did I become by the damage that this was doing to the dome project that I asked to see the then leader of the Labour party, the present Prime Minister, and put to him as strongly as I could the fact that his party had been committed to the project from the first stage. Labour knew all about it, and had complete access to all the information and figures. In those circumstances, a sudden decision by the Labour party to abandon the project would have been—at least—a major breach of integrity.
Hon. Members have referred to the reappraisal that took place. The new Government decided to proceed with the project, and I remained part of a working team that met almost every Tuesday afternoon. The plans were unfolded at those meetings. My colleague from the Millennium Commission, Simon Jenkins—again, of no known political affiliation—took an equal part in those decisions.
My second point is about the projected 12 million attendance. I have spent much of my commercial life launching projects. I have never known one yet that was certain, did not carry an element of risk and did not involve consultants who said, "It can't be done."However, the Millennium Commission took the best evidence that it could about possible numbers. It was ultimately down to the commissioners, not the Government, to decide whether to proceed on the basis


of figures that were high but not unreasonable. I vividly remember the meeting when we made that decision. I shall not say that my views were uninfluenced by my judgment of consultants—I have used many consultants. The late, great Charles Clore said:
My accountant is right 99 times out of a hundred. The other time, I make a fortune
An element of that applies to consultants.
The other profound influence on my views was my experience with the Liverpool garden festival. When the plans were put to us, I was told, "Secretary of State, we are forecasting 3 million visitors. We'd like you to endorse that figure." I said that I would state that I was advised that we were expecting 3 million visitors; I was not prepared to endorse the figure. I felt ashamed of that later because 3.6 million visitors went to the garden festival on Merseyside in six months.
When I took part in the decision-making process on the dome, I remembered that 3.6 million visitors had come to Merseyside in six months. I knew that the dome would be a national endeavour, sited in London, that it would embrace a huge number of tourists, and that it would carry all-party support and massive private sector financial support and all that went with that. It therefore seemed reasonable to back expert advice that around 10 to 12 million visitors were possible.
The precise moment at which everything appeared to go wrong does not accord with my memory of the reporting of the dome endeavours from the mid-1990s onwards. I have been engaged in the development of many controversial public projects, but I have never known one so undermined and vilified by the national press from the moment that it was announced. Of the many reasons for not achieving this, that or the other target, one reason for not gaining the private sector financial support that we might have expected, was that every time we endeavoured to raise money from the private sector, our attempts were met with massive contemptuous dismissal from the national press.

Sir Norman Fowler: Did I misunderstand my right hon. Friend, or did he imply that it was his intention from the start that the project should go to London?

Mr. Heseltine: I personally was inclined that way. I appreciate the persuasive battle that my right hon. Friend fought for Birmingham. I was open-minded, but I had an instinct that we were considering a national project for the capital city. I shall outline the factors that determined that the project went to Greenwich, and influenced my other colleagues on the commission, who spoke for themselves.
My right hon. Friend can at least give me credit for being one of the national exhibition centre's most frequent visitors. However, we did not believe that it offered the opportunity for a spectacular architectural innovation; we believed that the Greenwich site did that. Secondly, we did not believe that the national exhibition centre offered the same incredible regeneration opportunities—opportunities that were not so desperately needed on the NEC site as they were in Greenwich.

Mr. McCabe: If regeneration was such a central criterion for the right hon. Gentleman, why was it not

mentioned in the original competition that the Millennium Commission announced? Why were the Birmingham NEC group and the city council told that they could not use regeneration arguments to support to their bid?

Mr. Heseltine: I would have to look back at the relevant documents to ascertain whether I agree with the simplicity of the hon. Gentleman's case. Let me put a counter-argument as it occurs to me. We divided the competition into two parts: proposals for building the dome and proposals for a site. With hindsight, the Millennium Commission had no power to organise the dome. We could only ask others to present proposals. We were preoccupied by the risk that we might have got a fantastic site in, for example, Birmingham and a wonderful proposal for, for example, Derby. We had to decide how we would cope with that. We therefore decided to split the competition between the organisation and the site. Birmingham had incomparably the best proposal, which was presented by Gary Withers of Imagination. However, the problem of the site remained.
There was also a powerful additional argument for Greenwich that I had not deployed before the hon. Gentleman questioned me. In Birmingham the motorways were a problem. The NEC would have been a car-served site.

Sir Norman Fowler: There is a railway.

Mr. Heseltine: Yes, but an enormous number of people would have travelled by motorway. They could not have been stopped. The NEC is served by cars. For many of us who travel along the motorways of the west midlands on a Thursday or Friday, the idea of injecting an enormous extra flow of private transport into that area was perceived as a disadvantage at the time. Those are broadly the arguments that led us to Greenwich. Again, with hindsight, I would not rely on public transport. There is a psyche attached to the use of the car and the way in which families entertain themselves that imposed a serious liability on us as we tried to achieve our targets.
My third point is about the after-use of the site. We are all agonising about the regrettable way in which the project has worked out. No one feels that more strongly than me. From the experiences of the London Docklands development corporation, I am aware that none of us really knows how regeneration projects will work out. Nobody would have believed me if I had stood at the Dispatch Box in 1979 and proclaimed the success of Canary wharf, City airport and Excel. I would have been laughed to scorn. Yet that was the beginning of an extraordinary phenomenon.
do not know what will happen in Greenwich, but I know that there is a remarkable building there. It would be a tragedy if, in the short-term aftermath of the collapse of public confidence in the project, we tore down the building as an act of contrition. I hope that the Government and the Millennium Commission, which will be consulted and of which I am a member, will keep its nerve. I hope that when considering the £10 billion of lottery money that was raised through the foresight of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, hon. Members will bear in mind that the expenditure—far more than we ever wanted—is still to be seen in the context of the most remarkable creation in a generation of expenditure on culture, heritage and the arts that this country has ever seen.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and I have known each other for a long time, going back to our undergraduate days. It is 20 years since we faced each other regularly across the Dispatch Box. We argued about a great many things. As he is not standing again at the next general election, perhaps we shall not speak again in the same debate in the House. That being so, I pay tribute to him for the regenerative work that he did when Secretary of State for the Environment. I differed with him a good deal about some of it but he did a great deal. I thank him for the money that he put into Moon Grove in my constituency. We had a bitter argument in the Chamber, and behind the Chair he agreed to put money into my constituency, with no conceivable political gain for himself. I pay tribute to him for that and for his honest and honourable speech this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman has cause to be proud of the dome as an icon of the United Kingdom. Coming into the country from the air, it is a great landmark. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that we shall be able to keep it for a long time, as it fulfils an honourable function.
If the official Opposition had conducted the debate in the manner adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be a different occasion. I know that too many Conservative Members are beyond shame, but I hope that when they listened to the right hon. Gentleman they felt some shame about the way in which they are seeking to make cheap party capital, which they will fail to do, over what was intended to be a national project. It was intended to be a non-party project, and it should have remained so. Had that happened, it might well have achieved more of the visitor numbers which the right hon. Gentleman and Labour Members wanted.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, paid tribute to Jennie Page, who is one of the most remarkable people I have ever met, for the way in which she delivered the dome on time. It is extremely difficult to deliver a huge building project on a specific day, one day beyond which would have been regarded as a catastrophe. She is a remarkable woman. I said to her face that her determination and single-mindedness made Margaret Thatcher seem humble. She took that in good spirit. As we said in a recent Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report, I hope that she will be able to do further valuable work in the public sector.
We now know, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference last month, that a serious error was made, which was to believe that Governments or public bodies know how to run visitor attractions. The Select Committee, of which I am Chairman, had a relevant witness at its first hearing and first inquiry three years ago. If it was an error, and it was, that is because Jennie Page, with all her extraordinary virtues, did not know how to run such an attraction. That is no discredit to her. However, if we had known that, things might have been very different.
It is all very well for Conservative Members to sneer and talk about Mickey Mouse. The Disney organisation knows how to run visitor attractions, but Disneyland Paris was a catastrophe when it first opened. It is now the only visitor attraction in democratic Europe that has more

paying visitors than the millennium dome. However, it got it all wrong to begin with. With its incredible wealth, it had to bail everything out and start again. A huge commercial organisation that knows how to do things, has huge experience and has a brand name unrivalled in the world could not get things right. It is regrettable that the Conservative party started to make cheap political capital out of the dome, and discreditable even to it.

Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall proceed.
We have only to look at the history. I am making no excuses for my right hon. Friends. They are the Government, and they should take responsibility. Let us remember, however, that the Government had been in office for only six weeks when they decided to continue with the dome. Most of my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet had no experience of government and had never sat on the Government Benches. I thank the right hon. Member for Henley for saying that they decided bravely to continue it. It had started under a party which had been in government for 18 years. We were told that it was the party of business.
I do not think that we can blame a fledgling Labour Government, after 18 years in opposition, for believing that the Government who had been in office before them knew what they were doing. The timetable can be traced in the report which the Select Committee published in August. In June 1994, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), as the first chairman of the Millennium Commission, talked about
the idea of a Millennium Festival with an Exhibition as its centrepiece
In February 1996, the Millennium Commission selected the Greenwich site. With great respect, I believe that it was right to do so. There was the road transport factor along with regeneration and the symbolism of the meridian line, which I believe was extremely important. The commission did that long before the general election. At the beginning of 1997, it set up the New Millennium Experience Company and appointed Jennie Page as the chief executive. It decided, a policy which the Labour Government continued, to appoint a Minister as sole shareholder, rightly believing, as did the previous Government, that in the end the matter came back to the House, or in the case of Lord Falconer, the other place. [Interruption.] There is no point the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) giggling about the House of Lords being a House of Parliament. When Harold Macmillan became Prime Minister, for a time he had a Member of the House of Lords as his Foreign Secretary. It is a House of Parliament, and the Conservatives dominate it, so they had better not sneer at it quite so much as they do.
I do not criticise the Conservatives for doing all that. It is easy with hindsight to say that the big error was the estimate of visitor numbers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a non-contentious manner, gave the history of the estimate of visitor numbers. The Select Committee has conducted a series of inquiries into this matter. Its eighth report published in August contains a


memorandum submitted by the Millennium Commission on 24 May 1995, which is nearly two years before the Labour Government came to office. It said:
The Commission agrees site selection guidelines which set the "brave but defensible" aim of a minimum 15 million visitors … For site selection purposes, in particular regarding maximum site capacity, guidelines remark that a figure in excess of 30 million visitors unlikely
But 15 million was considered likely.
A memorandum in July said:
The first set of guidelines to potential operators issued by the Commission included in the site criteria the indicative target of achieving between 15 and 30 million visits over the year
In February-May 1996, a year before the general election, a memorandum said that the commission
explored the feasibility of an Exhibition with an attendance target of 10 million or more, an arena for 12,000, and a three-year national programme
On 16 May, it said:
Commission adopt a more modest plan involving temporary buildings, with no arena or national programme and a visitor target of 10 million
In January 1997, it said:
MCL business plan revised by MC staff. Visitor assumption reduced to 10 million. Indicative budget approved by Commission 13 January
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Henley are absolutely right to pinpoint the fact that those, as it turned out, highly over-optimistic projections are at the root of the financial problem. All the overhead factors were built in on the basis of that visitor number. Once they were built in, they could not be built out again. We could not change the building. We could not suddenly reduce the number of staff. As my right hon. Friend said, the staff are wonderful. Their sheer courtesy and kindness help to make this visitor attraction a great experience for those who go to see it.
Let us be clear about this. The hon. Member for East Surrey said that we should have realised long ago that the dome would be a failure. It is a failure in relative terms: it is not a failure as a paying visitor attraction—it is an amazing visitor attraction.
Members on the Conservative Front Bench—not the few grown-ups left in the party, such as the right hon. Member for Henley—have dissociated themselves from this project. I was on the underground train on the night of 31 December last year with my niece and her husband. They had come down from Leeds to join me in the celebrations. She has a proud picture taken with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the underground station. He was there that night. He did not dissociate himself from the dome that night. He was part of it. It would be greatly to his credit if he remained part of it. He is doing his party no good, because the electorate are not fools. A Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph today shows that 42 per cent. of the electorate blame the last Conservative Government for the present rail chaos, and 15 per cent. blame the present Labour Government.
One of the reasons why the Conservatives will be trounced at the next election and why their chances of returning to office at any time in the foreseeable future are small is that they have contempt for the electorate.

Eighteen years in opposition at least taught me not to have any contempt for the electorate. I learned that the voters know what they are doing.

Mr. Gale: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).

Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman is courteous as always. He chided us for making party political points, and since then has done nothing but make party political points. Does he realise that some Conservative Members believed passionately that the regeneration of Greenwich was a good idea? They believed that to put the dome, as a fine building, as close as possible to the meridian line was the right idea, and that the concept of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), and others was right. It is because of that and because we had a sense of national pride that we now feel a burning sense of national shame and anger at having been let down by what went into the dome, by its mismanagement and by the fact that people have been unable to get to it.

Mr. Kaufman: I do not know of any national sense of burning shame and anger. As the right hon. Member for Henley said, people criticise the large sums of lottery money that are spent on the dome, but the Conservative party decided to do that. People say, "That money should have gone to the national health service and schools," but that was not the view of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) nor is it the view of the Conservative party today. It does not advocate spending money on the national health service or education, but simply wants more of the same—spending on the five sectors that were decided on by the Conservative Government and championed by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey.
I hope that the Government will revise the categories, and I believe that there is a good argument for spending large sums of lottery money on the NHS, education and other core services. However, the Conservative party, not the Labour party, decided on the additionality principle, although it will get angry with us if we do not continue that approach.

Mr. Fraser: I, too, sit on the Select Committee. During the production of our report, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, there were several departures, in particular by Sir Cameron Mackintosh, Stephen Bayley and Eric Sorensen. What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion of that? At that time, the general public felt no confidence in the project. That should be coupled with the opinions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley put to the Select Committee. He said:
If you cannot answer the question about the contents, you cannot get somebody to sign up for the money.
There was prevarication during that period, and resignations, and a consequent lack of confidence. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard. He also Knows my view on


that matter. Cameron Mackintosh is a highly successful theatrical producer, but he has made terrible mistakes, too. The successor to "Miss Saigon" flopped and had to be closed and re-opened, and "Moby Dick", which he absolutely adored, was a catastrophe. As for Stephen Bayley—a more trivial person it would be difficult to find, even on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman knows how fond I am of him, but on this occasion we have to differ.
Interestingly, despite all the electorate's feelings of burning anger and all the rest of it, building the dome was right, even though, given the chance, I believe that they would have said, "No, let's build some hospitals and new schools." The regeneration of Greenwich is an extraordinary achievement, and would not otherwise have occurred. As the right hon. Member for Henley said, it was one of the most polluted areas in Europe, but it is now proud and regenerated, and thousands of new jobs have been created.
It is a pity that even the Conservative party should conduct itself in this way, but, on the whole, I do not particularly mind. When the Labour party suffered a blip in the polls a couple of months ago, there appeared to be a possibility of the Conservative party winning the next election. However, the electorate's sheer revulsion at the prospect led to the Labour Government's return to popularity. I say to the Conservative party, "Go on like this, please, I beg of you." I have increased my majority at every general election since 1970 and, with the help of the Conservatives, I shall do so again.

9 pm

Mr. Norman Baker: It is odd, given that the Conservative party called this Opposition day debate, that more Liberal Democrats than Conservatives have been present throughout. It seems that the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is not shared by colleagues who are not giving him the proper support from behind.
Before the typically interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), we heard a rather predictable exchange between those on the two Front Benches. We heard from the Conservative side that everything was the fault of the present Government—that the Dome had been left in pristine condition in 1997, and that everything had gone terribly wrong since then. We then heard from the Labour side that it had been a disaster from the start—that in 1997 it had been impossible to save it from its present fate, and that it was all the fault of the Conservatives. Finally, there was the "let's hug each other" arrangement, whereby the parties agree to blame one another and say that that is a bipartisan approach. This is a very interesting lesson in politics.
I think I can safely say with hand on heart that we have not been part of the "bipartisan approach". We are not represented by any MPs on the Millennium Commission, although it contains two Ministers and an Opposition Member, and we have not been involved in discussions in that context across the Chamber. It is, in a way, interesting to sit here on the sidelines listening to Conservative and Labour Members blaming each other for the Dome. Our amendment points out that it is not all the fault of either Labour or the Conservatives—that there are faults on both

sides. To be frank, I suspect that had we been in government a bit of blame would have attached to us—although perhaps not as much as has attached to the Government or the Conservative party.
It is true—it is clear from the National Audit Office report—that there were serious faults in the way that the whole dome project was established. There were faults in terms of assessment of visitor numbers, for instance. I heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman); but, according to the NAO report, visitor numbers were assessed without reference to the contents, without reference to the prices, and without reference to the marketing strategy. That does not strike me as a very sensible way of proceeding. There is also the highly complex management structure referred to in the NAO report. That was set up by the Conservatives, but inherited and continued by the present Government.
There was also what could be described as a culture of secrecy, which has not been mentioned so far. Members of Parliament were unable to obtain information, especially when the then Minister without Portfolio was in charge of the project. I am sorry that he has not seen fit to grace the House with his presence, unlike the right hon. Member for Henley, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—a previous Secretary of State—and others on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has been the one absentee. It is a pity that he has not turned up to give his views—but then he was never very keen on coming to the House for that purpose. He had to be dragged here kicking and screaming for a five-minute session, after the House had been sitting in the present Parliament for six or nine months. He does not treat the House with much respect in regard to these matters.
Let me concentrate on the good points—for there are good points, which have been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House. First, we should admit that many people have enjoyed themselves. Secondly, there has been a much-needed regeneration of Greenwich. It must be said, however, that that objective did not seem to rate particularly highly until recently. It has now been dragged out as something that was always there in the beginning, but has somehow moved to centre stage as other, unsuccessful objectives have fallen.
The millennium dome has good staff, and I feel sorry for them. They have been let down by the dome's management, and by Ministers in both this and the previous Government. The structure of the dome is a wonderful architectural achievement, and I hope very much that it is saved. I agree with the right hon. Member for Henley about that. It would be a pity if it were not saved, because I do not think the structure is at fault. No one seems to have criticised the structure, although there has been criticism of the contents, the management and everything else. Although many people want to erase the dome from their memories as a bad dream, the structure should not be erased.
Last week or the week before, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would list the dome, because I thought that that was a way of securing its future as a building. He declined to do so, which gives the nod to the possibility, at least, that it will be demolished, which would be a pity.

Mr. Chris Smith: It does no such thing, but follows existing practice that buildings less than 10 years old are simply not listed.

Mr. Baker: I appreciate that that is normally the position, but the Culture Secretary could, if he wished, list the millennium dome, although he chose not to do so. Given the fact that the land is worth more without the dome than it is with it, it is possible that the dome will disappear, especially if the discussions with Legacy do not reach a satisfactory conclusion later this week. However, the tube station is a fantastic achievement, which no one has mentioned tonight. The Culture Secretary referred to the lessons that had been learned, which will be helpful in future. I agree that we can lay blame in different quarters, which I do as much as anyone else. However, we all need to learn lessons, and there are lessons to be learned, as the NAO report clearly set out.
It is a little hypocritical of Conservative Members to say that it is all the Labour Government's fault and that everything is terribly wrong. Presumably, had Conservative Members still been in power, everything would have been all right—at least that is the implication of what they have been saying in the press. The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
It is a little like Cadbury's developing a wrapper without actually deciding what the chocolate bar is going to be.
I think that Conservative Members are guilty of that and are responsible for the culture of secrecy that enveloped the dome.
For goodness' sake, when the Labour Government came in, several Cabinet Ministers were sceptical about the scheme. They had a review, and, given the poor management structure, the ambitious visitor targets and the culture of secrecy, I fail to understand why they did not conclude, calmly and logically, that it was not sensible to proceed.

Mr. Efford: Visitor numbers were revised on several occasions before 1997, but not once did visitor projections go down below 10 million. The scheme proceeded on that basis, and, in that respect, everyone has been consistent in their approach to the dome.

Mr. Baker: I am happy to accept that visitor numbers were adjusted before the election, as others have said. However, the adjustment of visitor numbers appeared to take place in a vacuum, without the benefit of knowing what was in the dome, without a proper marketing strategy and without a clear indication of what the prices would be. One cannot set visitor numbers without a decision on such matters.
According to The Mail on Sunday, a thoroughly reliable paper that I always read, the Chancellor said in June 1997:
I have a series of worries. It's public money—if anything goes wrong it will all come back to us.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment allegedly said:
I am deeply against it, frankly. We ought to be honest and say it would cost £450 million.
Of course, that was an underestimate, as the dome cost considerably more than that. The Secretary of State for International Development said:
I'm vehemently opposed. This will be a political disaster.

The then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said:
I'm against. Public money and lottery money are indistinguishable in the public mind
The then Leader of the House, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), said:
We could be spending more on schools and hospitals instead.
Senior Cabinet Ministers clearly held the view that the project should not go ahead. With all those views against it, how on earth did it go ahead? Will the Culture Secretary or the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting in her winding-up speech tell us whether there was a vote in Cabinet to proceed with the project? Or did the Prime Minister simply decide that it should go ahead, and the rest of his Cabinet Ministers were wheeled in behind? I accept that in those early days the Labour Government were new and did not have the previous Government's experience in office, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said. However, they should have been even more careful, given the scale of the project, and the possible use of public funds, including lottery funds.
Lord Falconer has been mentioned briefly. There have been persistent calls from a number of sources for his resignation. I do not believe that he is the only person who has made mistakes on the project, but he certainly has made mistakes. Even from the point that he took over, serious mistakes have been made with the dome. For example, a bewildering succession of people have been in charge of the dome, even in the past 12 months. They seem to come and go; we cannot keep up with it.
There has been a bewildering succession of pleas for more money for the dome, most of them in the parliamentary recess, when it was impossible for Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account. One of the pleas was made in August, immediately after the House went into recess, when I am sure that information was known.
There are questions about the financial management of the dome, which clearly involve Lord Falconer. Paragraph 2.44 of the NAO report says:
In the light of the advice received from the Company's solicitors, the Company's Chairman notified the Shareholder on 25 May that the Board members would have to "consider their personal positions" if the Government did not provide indemnity against any wrongful trading actions brought against them by creditors
It goes on to talk about insolvency, but paragraph 2.45 shows that, about a month and a half later, Lord Falconer gave evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and said:
the position would not be reached where the Dome was insolvent. It has always been monitored extremely closely and we have only proceeded on the basis that the Dome can continue successfully to the end of the year 2000
Those two facts offer something of a contrast. Lord Falconer should explain that contradiction. He has not done so, so he is implicated in the events of this year. He has not yet answered his critics.
It is equally the case that, going back to the history of the current Parliament—I can speak from personal experience only about this Parliament; obviously, I was not in the previous Parliament—we were sceptical as a


party from the beginning: from early 1997, when I took over as spokesman on the issue. I remember in 1998 warning the Minister without Portfolio, as he was then:
Many people think that it —
the dome —
is a total waste of money, and that …it has been badly handled, and has failed to capture the public's imagination.
I set out steps that I believed needed to be taken at that point—two years ahead of opening—which would have turned the dome into less of a failure, if you like, or more of a success than it has turned out to be. I was shot down for that. I was told that I was being disloyal, I was talking Britain and the dome down, and it was going to be a fantastic success, yet it has not turned out that way.
Instead, what did we hear? We heard from the Minister without Portfolio:
Spending is within budget, costs are firmly under control … The millennium company is performing highly competently.—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 276-81.]
We also heard something about surf ball. I am not sure what that was, but it seems to have disappeared from the agenda, too.

Diane Abbott: Critics of the dome are sometimes accused of exercising hindsight, but in June 1997 the Millennium Commission staff produced a written appraisal of the company's business plan. They expressed concern then that
the plan lacked detail on commercial, operational and pricing strategies and that there was no substantive information in the plan on …the content of the Dome.
It is a question not of hindsight, but of people not listening at the time.

Mr. Baker: I entirely agree with that intervention. The hon. Lady has been clear about her views from the beginning. It is a pity that members of the Government did not listen to her, too, rather than just shrugging off any criticism of the dome from Members on both sides of the House, saying that they were being disloyal to the dome. Lord Falconer therefore has some responsibility for this year's events. He has criticisms to answer about financial management.
There is another matter to be addressed. There is a tradition in British politics that people take responsibility for something that goes horribly wrong. With the best will in the world—I am sure people have the best intentions—this has gone horribly wrong. There is no point denying that.
Of course, the visitor numbers are there, but let us look at the cost: £628 million of lottery money—what a cost. The public in my constituency and elsewhere are appalled at the amount of money that has been spent on the dome. Irrespective of whether they think its contents are good, they are appalled at the amount of money that has been spent. They feel that it has been mismanaged.
There have been continual claims for more and more money. The management has changed constantly. It is inconceivable that there can be mismanagement on such a scale and that no Minister is prepared to take responsibility for it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend recall that the last senior Minister to resign on a

point of principle, although it was no fault of his own, was Lord Carrington over the invasion of the Falklands? Since then, not even after the BSE bombshells that were presented to the House has any Minister taken personal responsibility for a disaster on this scale.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right, and it is a pity that that tradition seems to be ending.
I do not often make such statements, but I think that Lord Falconer should go—not because he is responsible for everything that has gone wrong at the dome, which he is not, but because someone has to be seen by the public to be taking responsibility for the situation and to accept that both the previous Government and the current Government got it wrong. Lord Falconer happens to be in post at the moment.

Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is appropriate that the person who has what may be called the misfortune to be the incumbent should take all the responsibility, whereas, as the hon. Gentleman's own speech makes clear, the origins of the problem go back much further?

Mr. Baker: As the Liberal Democrats' amendment to the motion states, responsibility lies with both the previous Government and the current one. People should be prepared to acknowledge that.
The public feel cheated and believe that huge sums have been wasted. In those circumstances, the Government have to take responsibility, as does the Minister who is currently responsible for the dome. He is in post. When the music stops, the person left standing has to go. In this case, that is Lord Falconer.
My dictionary defines a dome as a "self-supporting structure", but that is far from true in this case. Indeed, the "millennium tent" in Private Eye is probably a more appropriate description of the dome. Nevertheless, I admire the building, although its content requires huge sums.
What about the future? Legacy is in negotiations with the Government, although it is not the Government's first choice. Dome Europa is long gone, and we are now dealing with the Government's second choice and plan B, which puts Legacy in a very strong position to lay down the terms that it wants and to threaten to walk away if it does not get them. One Sunday newspaper described that as the "dark dome" scenario in which the dome sits empty because no one can take it over and it is too embarrassing to demolish it—although that has not been ruled out in this debate. It would be an unfortunate end to that building and to this episode of British politics.
Today, we need a statement from the Minister telling us where we are with the Legacy negotiations. Is it true that Legacy has laid down terms to which the Government have to agree by Friday? Will the Minister undertake to come to the House to make that statement, so that hon. Members do not have to hear about it on the "Today" programme? Are not the Government over a barrel in negotiations with Legacy?


It is a sorry end. I hope very much that the dome's structure will survive and that lessons will be learned, as the Secretary of State says must happen. He has outlined some of those lessons.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I shall not; I am almost finished.
A lesson in modesty might also be in order for politicians who are in charge of Governments and of the Departments with responsibility for the dome.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The dome has been a target since its inception and that criticism has intensified. It is always easy to denigrate and to write knocking copy, and there has been something of a bandwagon in dome criticism—which must surely be the most ironic and hypocritical attack coming from Conservative Members, who initially established the project. These days, Conservative Members are taking a swipe at the dome although they were the ones who laid its foundations. That is no more than blind opportunism of the kind that might have been expected. If the dome's future is a great one, the Conservatives will undoubtedly rediscover its Tory roots and reclaim it as their own. It is true that we said that the dome would be the first paragraph of our general election manifesto, but one thing is for sure: it is the last word in Tory hypocrisy.
Let us be quite clear about it at the outset: as we have already heard, the dome is the most popular paying attraction in the United Kingdom. Although one would never know it from the opprobrium that has been heaped on it, particularly by the media, the dome is not the least popular attraction in the United Kingdom.
It says something about the remaining vestiges of snobbery and elitism in the United Kingdom that the Royal Opera house in Covent Garden can receive large cash injections to be renovated and promoted, whereas the dome, in east London, is regarded as the embarrassing lowly cousin. As I have said on many occasions, over the past few years, businesses, institutions and companies have been moving eastwards in London. The centre of metropolitan gravity has been pulling in the direction of that part of London—an area which has, historically, suffered deprivation and poverty, of which it still has more than its share. New opportunities have opened up with the regeneration of east London, and we are now beginning to see how local communities can benefit from positive changes in the area's economic and social environment. No longer is it the case that people are excluded; they are getting the jobs now. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in respect of the Thames gateway.
The dome has been part of that change. Far from being a folly, it has regenerated an area that was previously derelict and a rather sad spectacle—and thousands of jobs have been created. These days, when I look across the strip of the Thames between my constituency and the dome across the water, the view is spectacular—a real credit to the area and no longer the wasteland of pre-dome days.

Once the decision had been made to create the dome, the local environment began to improve dramatically. The site was decontaminated, and plans for vastly improved transport connections were drawn up. The idea that the Greenwich peninsula could have a new, vibrant life had its doubters. Given its location and the condition of the site, its regeneration was always going to be a massive undertaking—especially given the relatively short time in which the work had to be completed for the millennium eve celebrations.

Mr. Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the site was the greatest area of contaminated land in the south of England and that it was a massive—and massively expensive—job to clear up the contamination?

Mr. Fitzpatrick: The right hon. Member for Henley said that he recognised the mistake that he had made by not including the area in the London docklands development area when he designated it 15 years earlier.
The efforts of all those committed to the project deserve a congratulatory mention. The dome remains an amazing achievement in terms both of size and of quality of construction. We often hear talk of how much this country needs to promote the value of engineering. Here we have a triumph of engineering that some people do nothing to salute. It is time that those people recognised the significance of the achievement, instead of diminishing it. Thousands worked on its construction; thousands more, of course, have been employed to service this huge visitor attraction.
Forgetting the critics for a moment—if only we could—local people and local businesses were generally quite positive about the project and its ability to revolutionise the profile of the area. Once again, that is something that is not often trumpeted. The dome symbolised the way in which so much potential could burgeon into something impressive and of benefit to the whole region and to the United Kingdom. Why should it not symbolise that potential in the future? It is a stunning building. It is hard not to be impressed with it when you see it. It is a feat of architectural splendour to be proud of.
The dome is unique, and has won the MacRobert award, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said. Visitors like it; 88 per cent. of the 4.8 million interviewed said that they enjoyed the experience, and 94 per cent. that they enjoyed the spectacular show. But the dome is more than a day out enjoyed by its visitors—pleasing though that may be. It is also about participation, and I would like to say a few words about that important part of the dome's work.
McDonald's has been involved with the dome from the early days, and one way in which it has interacted with the dome is in the McDonald's "our town story" programme. "Our town story" involves the whole of the UK in the year 2000. Local education authorities across the UK are participating in the programme, and each produces a show at the dome involving up to 100 young people from local schools. These shows dip into the history and present-day life of their region, town or village. They also take a look at what the future may hold for their home town. The shows are inclusive, and children of varying abilities and experiences get involved. My latest experience, Newham's "our town story" day at


the dome, was last Friday. I spoke to Stephen Hall, the McDonald's community affairs manager, and his colleague Victoria Hague. They advised me that they had invited 210 local education authorities to participate, expecting a reasonable response. All 210 local education authorities had said yes, and Jersey had applied to be included, making 211. The programme has involved around 20,000 students across the country in one small aspect of dome activity that cannot be costed and quantified.
In Canning Town, the regeneration partnership ran a painting competition not long ago for school students with the theme "What's good about Canning Town?" Of the 50 shortlisted finalists, every one showed Canary wharf, the dome and London City airport. None of them are actually in Canning Town, but all of them can be seen from Canning Town. If the new exhibition and conference centre, Excel, had been built then, I know that it would have been featured. Those visual images of the dome showed that the structure was and is part of our landscape in east London. These young people, aged from five to 18. were saying, "This is our town. These are our buildings. This is our future."
The dome is an important marketing tool for London abroad. It is one of our best known modern features, ranking with Canary wharfs 1 Canada square and the London Eye, as well as historic buildings such as this place. Tourism is a key part of our future and the dome must play an important part in that. Once this year is over and the errors of judgment fade, we will still have the Jubilee line extension. The Greenwich peninsula will remain decontaminated and I hope that the dome's structure will be there to play its part.
Finally, I commend the dome's staff. They have had to put up with the most outrageous attacks over the past 11 months, but on each occasion that I have visited, they have been first class—positive, motivated and professional. I hope that they see out their contracts; it is disappointing that they will not have the collective end-of-season party they deserve, but I am sure that they will make their own arrangements to celebrate their efforts.
Despite the errors, the dome should stay and be used to help promote east London, this great capital city and the United Kingdom throughout the world. It would be an act of vandalism for it not to remain.

9,26 pm

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I shall keep my comments brief because I know that other hon. Members would like to speak.
We have heard it said several times this evening that the millennium dome was conceived by the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) described the purpose of the project in the evidence that he gave the Select Committee in 1997. He described the legacy that the previous Government had hoped the dome would leave as an image of the country at the forefront of cultural, artistic, engineering and scientific activity and attainment. It was to have a sense of unity, bringing the nation together and, of course, regenerating a derelict and contaminated area of London. That was his vision and it was ours. However, it was destroyed when the Millbank machine took control. When the Labour party decided to make the millennium dome a symbol of new Labour, it took that vision away.
It is easy to point to the Conservative party and say that it was our idea, but the tragedy of the dome is not its design but the Government's shameful hijacking of the nation's project for its own ends. Quite simply, people do not want to see what the Government have presided over. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said:
those looking for fun might prefer a theme park, and those hoping to learn something might do better to visit the Science museum.
However, it is not surprising that it is so unappealing; the man in charge of overseeing its contents in 1997 said:
it must be a mixture of exciting and serious stuff.
That is not particularly appealing when the Government are trying to attract sponsorship and want people to go to the dome in the first place.

Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend also accept that when this vision was dreamt of, there were people in the House—on both sides, to be fair—who believed that the millennium dome might just have something to do with the millennium, as a celebration of the birth of Christ, which has not been mentioned tonight?

Mr. Fraser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. In evidence to the Select Committee, Ministers could not even decide whether the dome should have a faith zone. I refer back to that evidence, which makes interesting reading.
The failure of the dome comes down to visitor numbers. The business plan was based on the assumption that it would attract 12 million visitors. However, the figure was arrived at before the contents of the dome were decided. The ticket prices had not been decided and the decision not to allow cars near the dome had not been made. Those are contributory factors to the lower than expected visitor numbers. I go back to what I said earlier to the Secretary of State about what Mr. Keith Bales, the senior Disney executive, said to the Select Committee about the visitor numbers and the people in charge of the dome. The Secretary of State did not answer that point and I hope that the Minister will do so in her reply.
There was great scepticism about people on the board and great scepticism about the numbers. The Government had three years in which to talk further to Disney, but they did not. They went cap in hand only at the last moment. We can look back at the figures I have jotted down. By November 1998, it was estimated that 8.74 million people were "likely" to visit the dome and that a further 3.65 million "could he persuaded" to do so. However, as the report states, those surveys excluded education groups and potential overseas visitors. The company considered that that provided comfort for the overall projection of 12 million visitors.
Such figures may have provided comfort until the Prime Minister announced that a million schoolchildren would be allowed to visit the dome for free. I do not object to that in principle, but the business plan should have revised given the direct revenue cost of about £7 million. That did not happen, and decisions were taken in the light of the knowledge that the company saw risks that the dome would
not be a priority for many overseas visitors, who would be more likely to visit the Tower of London or Buckingham Palace …


However, despite that knowledge, the dome was still allowed to open with little idea of what would happen if the number of visitors fell below 12 million.
The NAO report states:
in essence … the strategy had been to draw on the cost contingency and to plan on the expectation of receiving proceeds from the sale of the Dome.
We know that even that issue is unresolved. We are reaching the end of the year, but we do not have answers to those important questions.
The Government cannot claim that no one foresaw the problem of visitor numbers. The NAO report states:
the Commission's staff had recommended that the Company's business plan be based, for the sake of prudence, on the figure of eight million visitors which was the "worst case" of the estimates provided to the Commission by its consultants, Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group.
On 28 January 2000, the New Millennium Experience Company revised its forecast down, as we heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is important that those figures decreased week after week, month after month, while the number of cash handouts was increasing. The Millennium Commission awarded £60 million in February; £29 million in May; £43 million in August; and £47 in September, bringing the total grant funding to £628 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey has said.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No. The hon. Gentleman wasted my time and that of the House when he tried to intervene on me during a previous debate, and I shall not give him that privilege this evening.
When leaving the sinking ship, the Minister then responsible, who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, told the Millennium Commission:
It is not public money, no. It is lottery money
The people of this country will not be pleased to read what was written down by the Committee on which I am proud to serve on occasions when we reach decisions that are worthy of the House. In the 1997 report, the Committee said:
in the context of accountability, this is a distinction without a difference. It is not money raised by taxation and it may be excluded from certain public expenditure definitions, but it is still taxpayers' money. and expenditure which must be held to account in the same way as money paid in taxation, whether directly or indirectly.
Unfortunately, the Government ignored that.
The project has been mismanaged by the Government, who tried to take it on and use it for their own political advantage. What the Prime Minister has said beggars belief. He said:
we will say to ourselves with pride: this is our Dome, Britain's Dome. And believe me, it will be the envy of the world.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman regrets saying that now.
The Government have made a mess of the dome, with the politicisation, the over-hype, the interference and the insistence on filling it with politically correct nonsense that no one wants to see—but there is a vital component missing: accountability. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey has said, Lord Falconer has talked about what has gone on at the dome but has not apologised.

The Government have not apologised, and tonight they should come forward and say that they have made mistakes. To help them on their way, I remind the Secretary of State that the then Minister told the Select Committee:
I will come on any occasion to meet any of my colleagues in Parliament and provide them with any information on a public or confidential basis…in order to make sure that people like you are satisfied that we are acting in a proper and transparent way. You have that undertaking from me today.
I look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech, but I doubt very much that we shall get much from the Government.

Mr. Clive Efford: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to the Chair.
A comparison of the contributions made by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and his Front-Bench colleague the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) makes it clear why the Conservatives will not be trusted by the people and will not win the general election. Their shabby opportunism and the shallowness of their debate on the dome have shown the shifting sands beneath them as they try to duck responsibility for the decisions that they took in the past. They do the House no credit.
The overriding matter affecting and undermining the dome has been its visitor numbers. We all accept that the estimates were not realistic. Although revisions were made several times by both the previous and present Governments, at no stage did estimated figures fall below 10 million visitors. We shall never know the full effect of what the right hon. Member for Henley called the vilification and undermining of the dome project. How many visitors were prevented from going to the dome because of negative publicity and the sniping that it has consistently endured?
The dome represents a major regeneration achievement. The Royal Arsenal used to employ 80,000 workers not far from the Greenwich peninsula, but that figure had fallen to 6,000 by the beginning of the 1990s. As a former Greenwich councillor, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley and his colleagues who heard our pleas for redevelopment of the site. It is not true that it was not included in docklands development because the previous Government made a mistake. In fact, the private sector was not prepared to take on the huge cost of decontaminating the site. The commercial return on investment would have taken too long to be realised. Only a scheme on the scale of the millennium experience, underwritten by the Government, could ever have resulted in regeneration that would bring the site back into use. No private investor was prepared to carry out that regeneration. I hope that the dome remains, because, now that decontamination has happened, I am sure that people will be lining up who would like to get their hands on that prime piece of real estate on the river front.
We should consider the benefits of the dome. The halo effect for job creation was projected to be 25,000. There are 5,700 operational jobs at the dome, and 2,300 employ people who live in Greenwich, a borough that was the 14th most deprived in the country when the scheme was conceived. Some 300 acres of derelict land have been decontaminated, and there are 50 acres of new park,
including ecological park and terraces. There are 1,004 new homes in the millennium village, of which 266 will be for rent. There are two miles of river walk and cycleway. There is a new, 160-room hotel, and a 14-screen multiplex. All that, plus new schools and health centres, is happening on the millennium peninsula because of the investment that came in around the millennium project.
Is the Conservative party seriously saying that it would have turned its back on all that regeneration in south-east London?

Mr. Greenway: indicated dissent.

Mr. Efford: Without the millennium dome, none of it would have been possible, which is the fact that the hon. Gentleman must recognise and cannot get away from. Without the investment generated by the project, none of that would have been possible.

Mr. Greenway: indicated dissent.

Mr. Efford: I have just explained all that, and I am sorry that I do not have the time to repeat it all so that the hon. Gentleman may understand it.
I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not care one jot about the jobs that have been created, nor that the people who work at the dome might have profited from some continuity of employment had it not been for the fact that the scheme has been so undermined that the future of the dome is in doubt. However, that is the reality that we face.
There have been 5.4 million visitors to the dome; it is the second most popular paying attraction in Europe. We should not decry the scheme; we should celebrate it. Disney did not achieve that when EuroDisney opened—that theme park was a disaster and had to be relaunched. The dome is a remarkable achievement; that should be acknowledged on both sides of the House and we should all celebrate it.

Mr. John Greenway: Once again, the Opposition have given the House the opportunity to debate the dome. It is clear that Members on both sides of the House hold strong views on the subject. Those Members with a constituency interest have rightly voiced their concern on behalf of their constituents.
Our motion reflects the fact that the debate on the dome needs to move on from the sterile arguments about whether it should have been built. We believe that it was right to build the dome. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) rightly pointed out that it is a fine engineering achievement. We agree.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)explained why the dome was built at Greenwich. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) has rightly put a constituency point of view as to what was achieved there; we, too, support regeneration in Greenwich.
However, Parliament's concern should be the issues raised by the National Audit Office report, which we outline in our motion. It is clear that some right hon. and hon. Members have not read the motion, which cites the

financial mismanagement of the New Millennium Experience Company. The dome has not been a financial success. Why has an additional £229 million of public money been wasted? Above all, why is no Minister willing to accept responsibility and take the honourable course and apologise—or, better still, resign?
Of course, it suits the Government to blame someone else, but the facts show clearly that the blame for mismanagement rests fairly and squarely with them. Before the election, the Millennium Commission—not the GEN 36 Committee, as some right hon. and hon. Members suggested—had agreed to build a dome at Greenwich with lottery funding. The Labour shadow Cabinet supported that view, conditional on a review of the decision if they won the general election.
Everyone knows that the review took place in June 1997 and that the Prime Minister not only backed the dome—overruling most of his Cabinet, we gather—but took credit for re-launching the project. The press release makes it clear: "Blair rescues millennium dome". The way in which the Prime Minister responded to concerns about the future of the dome and dealt with most of his Cabinet does not leave much doubt as to his claim to ownership of the project.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) says that the project should have been non-partisan. However, he must answer the question: why did the Prime Minister try to claim the project for himself and new Labour? The right hon. Member for Gorton referred to Disneyland in Paris. Yes, that project was a flop initially, but it did not receive £600 million of public money.
Those who try to blame the Conservatives—as the Liberal Democrats appear to do—are saying, in effect, that the dome was bound to fail from the start. That is the politics of despair. Clearly, the Prime Minister did not agree; on the contrary, he wanted to claim the credit for a successful dome. Nor did the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; when he appeared before the Select Committee, he would not even countenance the idea that there could be fewer than 12 million visitors. Furthermore, the sponsors did not think that the project would fail. More important, paragraph 16 on page 4 of the National Audit Office report points out:
Final decisions had not been made on the Dome's contents, on ticket prices, on marketing strategies.
All those crucial matters were decided by this Government.
More crucially, the original vision for the exhibition was drastically altered. Indeed, the Prime Minister's press statement said:
Mr. Blair demanded a number of changes.
It added:
The current concept being worked upon until now is not good enough and has to be changed.
There we have it—the Prime Minister wanted the concept of the dome to be changed. When Labour Members seek to discover why there was mismanagement, they must face the fact that it was their Government who changed matters considerably. The scale and detail of the mismanagement is there for all to see in the NAO report.
On the key issue of visitor numbers, Ministers must explain why a 12-million visitor target was adopted when they inherited a target of only 10 million from


the Millennium Commission. Indeed, the commission subsequently recommended that only 8 million was a feasible target.
Visitor numbers were inextricably linked with the exhibition's likely content and how that could be marketed. Ministers constantly interfered in the content, so they must shoulder responsibility.

Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I will not give way, because there is no time.
Ministers must shoulder responsibility for the NAO's finding that the dome's content had not been sufficiently explained or promoted. The hon. Member for Lewes(Mr. Baker)said that the public had not been inspired. There was no marketable coherent vision beyond the Prime Minister's constant rhetoric about cool Britannia. The public simply did not know what the dome was for, and £20 a time, plus all the travelling costs, was perceived to be too high a price for such an uncertain experience. The travel arrangements also acted as a disincentive. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley acknowledged, it was a mistake not to provide a car park or even a drop-off and pick-up facility.
All the problems arose as the direct consequence of decisions taken by Ministers and NMEC. They led directly to the financial crisis that overcame the dome in the first few weeks after it opened for visitors. The scale of the mismanagement was quickly picked up by the Secretary of State in his now famous letter to Lord Falconer in February, when he complained about a lack of leadership and serious failures of financial management, and concluded that the company was already technically insolvent.
Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State said that P-Y Gerbeau was wrong. We take that to mean that the dome was insolvent, so ministerial statements were inaccurate and Parliament was misled, however inadvertently. The record needs to be corrected. The dome has never recovered from the financial crisis caused by the clear failures of management. As a result, and to save face, more and more public money has been poured into the project. Ministers have still not explained why more than £200 million was wasted in that way.
The board clearly knew that the game was up because, as early as May, it sought and was granted financial indemnities. The Millennium Commission's accounting office twice sought a ministerial direction to pay grants that he could not justify on value—for—money grounds. When, on 22 August, PricewaterhouseCoopers declared the company insolvent—a fact that must have been obvious to NMEC directors—the Secretary of State and the shareholder, Lord Falconer, must have known months before that that was the case. Yet no apology has been made and no one sees fit to resign. The indictment stands not on speculative guesswork by the dome's critics but on information that was well known to those responsible and which the NAO report now confirms. Some £229 million has been wasted and, even by the Chancellor's definition, that was public money.
It is no wonder that people throughout Britain were so incensed every time another bundle of money was found to bail out this failing project. Can the Minister tell us that not a penny more will be granted? The Secretary of

State could not say whether the money will be repaid. Labour Members know full well that their electors agree with every word of our motion, and it is up to those Members to explain themselves if they choose riot to support it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate, we welcome the National Audit Office report. It is factual and accurate, and it will provide useful material that will enable the Government and, I hope, politicians of all parties to learn the lessons of the millennium experience. We shall be happy to work with the Public Accounts Committee in its inquiry into the dome's operations. We have done all that we can to co-operate with the NAO on this complex inquiry, and we will co-operate equally with the PAC.
There used to be a similar spirit of co—operation between the political parties on this issue. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who is not in her place, said
I welcome the Labour party's constructive approach …I have no wish for the exhibition to become the subject of party political disagreement.—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 680.]
I very much regret the Opposition's breach of convention in insisting on holding a debate about an NAO report—they made it plain that the report would be the subject of the debate—immediately after its publication and before the PAC has held its hearings. Their action is highly irresponsible. It is a long-established convention that the Government do not respond in detail to recommendations in NAO reports until the PAC has completed an inquiry and a formal response has been made
I will not be in danger of breaching convention if I point out some of the report's important findings. We have tonight heard a lot of bluster about the dome, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, there has been a deplorable unwillingness on the part of Opposition Members to acknowledge their role in many of the key decisions at the outset. We have heard serious points and not so serious points.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is well known for his commitment to regeneration, and I thank him for his contribution. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who pointed out that the right hon. Member for Henley is one of the few grown-ups on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) asked about negotiations with Legacy. He will know that those negotiations continue and that they are commercially confidential, but I assure him that any decision will be communicated to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), in whose constituency the dome lies, made important points about regeneration. The Minister for Housing and Planning has attended the whole debate and has always been a keen supporter of the dome.
I shall try to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but some of them did not make much sense. The detailed points about


the management of the dome during its year of operation will of course be considered by the PAC. The NAO report's finding—with which the Government entirely agree—is that the bulk of the difficulties associated with the dome are the result of the lower than expected number of visitors. We have heard much this evening about forecasts. Opposition Members have lined up to demonstrate their hindsight and show off their wisdom after the event. Yes, it is disappointing that the dome will not receive 12 million visitors; yes, the Government recognise that that means that the dome has been less of a success than everyone hoped. However, I remind Conservative Members, who are always keen to jeer when it suits them, that under the previous Government, the estimates of visitor numbers varied widely. Indeed, those various different estimates have been referred to in the debate. I remind the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that he admitted on 9 November 1996 that the numbers were all over the place.

Mr. MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Janet Anderson: No, I will not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I do not have much time, and the Secretary of State gave way a great deal.
Yes, it is true that the Government looked at the estimates and agreed a business plan that was intended for 12 million visitors, but we will not take lectures from Conservative Members about forecasts for visitor numbers. The target of 12 million was always ambitious, but we believed that it was achievable, the Millennium Commission believed that it was achievable, and when they were in government, the Opposition believed that it was achievable.
Such a figure was not unprecedented. We must remember that the dome is a national celebration, for one year only, of a once-in-a-thousand-years event. Moreover, it is a national celebration of international importance: celebrating the millennium in the home of time, on the Greenwich meridian. Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the figure was too challenging, but the Conservative party agreed and endorsed it. As the NAO report shows, the figure was the key issue. Many of the problems that the dome subsequently faced stemmed from the fact that it received fewer visitors than forecast. So, of course, it received income less than forecast.
I want to dispel another myth about the dome. A number of Conservative Members have accused the Government of doing nothing to help the dome as difficulties emerged. That is simply not true. When it became apparent soon after the dome had opened that changes needed to be made to its day-to-day operations, changes were made. The board took decisive action in February to bring in new management with enhanced skills in the operation of visitor attractions. The dome was made more welcoming, queues were managed better and a greater variety of ticketing options was introduced, including the ability to buy tickets on the door.
Later in the year, when the dome needed a marketing push, the company produced a new marketing plan and the Millennium Commission provided additional funds specifically to support it, which helped to attract more visitors to the dome. In the summer, when NMEC's board

was able to gain a fuller picture of the company's financial position, it took firm action again, bringing in an experienced specialist in company rescue, David James—the ideal man to give the company firmer management for the remainder of the year.
No one would pretend that this has been an easy year or that the dome has been as great a success as we all hoped it would be, but we have been constantly active in monitoring its progress and in encouraging it to take action to improve. It would be tragic if this debate ignored the benefits. Many of the regenerative benefits for the peninsula have been referred to. Let us not forget all the good things about the dome.
The dome is the most successful paying visitor attraction in Britain. By the end of the year, getting on for 6 million people will have been there and enjoyed it; 87 per cent. say that they enjoyed their visit to the dome. Of course we must learn the lessons that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have to teach us, but for those millions of visitors, and especially the millions of children who have visited the dome, it provides an amazing and unforgettable day out. I am confident that they and many others will deplore the Conservative party's attempt to exploit the matter in a partisan way. We know that the Tories are so desperate that they cannot see a bandwagon without jumping on it. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 304.

Division No. 328]
[10 pm



AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Allan, Richard



Amess, David
Collins, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cotter, Brian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Baker, Norman
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Ballard, Jackie
Day, Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, Iain


Blunt, Crispin
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Faber, David


Brady, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fearn, Ronnie


Breed, Colin
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burstow, Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Butterfill, John
Fraser, Christopher


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gale, Roger


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Garnier, Edward



George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cash, William
Gibb, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)
Gidley, Sandra



Gill, Christopher


Chidgey, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chope, Christopher
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gray, James


Clark, Dr. Michael (Rayleigh)
Green, Damian






Greenway, John
Paice, James


Grieve, Dominic
Pickles, Eric


Gummer, Rt Hon. John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Prior, David


Hammond, Philip
Randall, John


Hancock, Mike
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harvey, Nick
Rendel, David


Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hayes, John
Robertson, Laurence


Heald, Oliver
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Rowe, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ruffley, David


Horam, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jenkin, Bernard
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Nicholas



Spicer, Sir Michael


Keetch, Paul
Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Steen, Anthony


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Streeter, Gary


Kirkwood, Archy
Stunell, Andrew


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Livsey, Richard
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyrie, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Walter, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Madel, Sir David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Malins, Humfrey
Whittingdale, John


Maples, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mates, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Willetts, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Willis, Phil


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Oaten, Mark
Yeo, Tim


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Öpik, Lembit
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Stephen Day and


Page, Richard
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beard, Nigel


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Allen, Graham
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Betts, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Blackman, Liz


Austin, John
Blears, Ms Hazel


Banks, Tony
Blizzard, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Battle, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bayley, Hugh
Brinton, Mrs Helen





Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godman, Dr Norman A


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Goggins, Paul


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grogan, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hain, Peter


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cawsey, Ian
Healey, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Chaytor, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coaker, Vernon
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Colman, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Crausby, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jamieson, David



Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam



Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Donohoe, Brian H
Kidney, David


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drew, David
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lammy, David


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Ennis, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher


Field, Rt Hon Frank Fisher, Mark
Levitt, Tom


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Linton, Martin


Flint, Caroline
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flynn, Paul
Lock, David


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McGuire, Mrs Anne






McIsaac, Shona
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Roy, Frank


MacShane, Denis
Ruane, Chris


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ruddock, Joan


McWalter, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan


McWilliam, John
Salter, Martin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mallaber, Judy
Savidge, Malcolm


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Merron, Gillian
Singh, Marsha


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Spellar, John


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mudie, George
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Neill, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Organ, Mrs Diana
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Pollard, Kerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Pond, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
White, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wills, Michael


Purchase, Ken
Winnick, David


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Quinn, Lawrie
Wood, Mike


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Woodward, Shaun


Raynsford, Nick
Woolas, Phil


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wyatt, Derek


Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Mr. Don Touhig and


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 174.

Division No. 329]
[10 pm



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ainger, Nick
Darvill, Keith


Allen, Graham
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atkins, Charlotte
Denham, John


Austin, John
Dobbin, Jim


Banks, Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Barnes, Harry
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive


Benton, Joe
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bermingham, Gerald
Ennis, Jeff


Berry, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blears, Ms Hazel
Flint, Caroline


Blizzard, Bob
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gapes, Mike


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gardiner, Barry


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Hain, Peter


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chaytor, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith


Clwyd, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Coleman, Iain
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hutton, John



Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David






Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pollard, Kerry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lammy, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rogers, Allan


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Maxton, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Stevenson, George


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stringer, Graham


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)




Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mudie, George
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Norris, Dan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Hara, Eddie
Walley, Ms Joan


Olner, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Organ, Mrs Diana
White, Brian





Whitehead, Dr Alan
Woolas, Phil


Wicks, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wills, Michael
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Winnick, David
Wyatt, Derek


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Don Touhig.



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Allan, Richard
Gray, James


Amess, David
Green, Damian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Greenway, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Grieve, Dominic


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baker, Norman
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Hancock, Mike


Ballard, Jackie
Harvey, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hawkins, Nick


Bercow, John
Hayes, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heald, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brand, Dr Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brazier, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon



Burstow, Paul
Keetch, Paul


Butterfill, John
Key, Robert


Cable, Dr Vincent
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Kirkwood, Archy


Cash, William
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Letwin, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clappison, James
Lidington, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Livsey, Richard


Collins, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cotter, Brian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cran, James
Loughton, Tim


Curry, Rt Hon David
Luff, Peter


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Madel, Sir David


Faber, David
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Fearn, Ronnie
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Flight, Howard
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Foster, Don (Bath)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Norman, Archie


Fox, Dr Liam
Oaten, Mark


Fraser, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gale, Roger
Öpik, Lembit


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Page, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gidley, Sandra
Pickles, Eric


Gill, Christopher
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David






Randall, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tyler, Paul


Ruffley, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Viggers, Peter


Sanders, Adrian
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Richard
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Willis, Phil


Streeter, Gary
Wnterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Yeo, Tim


Syms, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the publication of the National Audit Office report, which gives a detailed account of events at the Dome; agrees that politicians of all parties involved in the project share responsibility both for the successes in regenerating this depressed part of South East London and its failings to reach its original visitor estimates; and deplores the decision by Her Majesty's Opposition not to support the original bi-partisan nature of this national project.

Control of Fuel and Electricity

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I beg to move,
That the Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2449) dated llth September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th September, be approved.
On 7 September, following similar events in France, protesters blockaded the Shell refinery at Stanlow in Cheshire. The oil companies told my Department that such action, if repeated at other refineries, could quickly and seriously disrupt national fuel supplies. As a consequence, the Government sought an Order in Council under section 3 of the Energy Act 1976. The Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 was made by Her Majesty on Monday 11 September and laid on 12 September. The order came into force on 11 September, it being considered that the exceptional urgency of the situation justified the order coming into force before it had been laid. Were the House and another place to approve the order, it would expire on 10 September 2001—that is, 12 months after it was made. Failing such approval, it would expire at midnight on Sunday 19 November. The order was approved in another place on 7 November.
Paragraph 2 of the order declares that
because there is imminent in the United Kingdom a threatened emergency affecting fuel supplies which makes it necessary in Her Majesty's opinion that the Government should temporarily have at its disposal exceptional powers for controlling the sources and availability of energy, the powers of sections 1 … and 2 … of the Energy Act 1976 shall be exercisable to their fullest extent.
Those sections enable the Secretary of State to make orders and to give directions to regulate the production, supply and use of certain fuels, including petrol and diesel.
It was considered in September that it was necessary for the Government to have those powers at their disposal, given the serious threat to fuel supplies, and hence to emergency and other essential services, to the health service and to food distribution. Using those powers, the Secretary of State subsequently made orders designating priority retail fuel sites and priority purposes to facilitate the orderly return to normal when protests ended. Those arrangements would have ensured continuity of essential services for a longer period had the blockades continued.
While the order is in force, the Secretary of State can, under sections 1 and 2, regulate the production and supply of fuel and direct companies and others as to the use of petroleum products or the price at which they are sold. Examples of orders and directions that the Government might want to issue would be directing petrol suppliers to supply only to specified locations and for priority purposes or restricting private, commercial or public transport activity, for the purpose of conserving supplies.
I remind the House of the Government's approach in responding to the fuel disruption in September. The Government made clear from the first our determination to ensure that supplies were returned to normal, in view of the risk that the disruption threatened to national prosperity and, potentially, to lives. As soon as it became apparent that supplies were being affected, we took action to ensure that the necessary procedures were put in place to allow for supplies to return to normal as quickly as possible.
The oil industry's standing emergency committee met daily to report the position in the refineries and the effect that that was having on distribution, and to review its list of priority petrol stations and depots. The ministerial civil contingencies committee met regularly to receive reports and co-ordinate action being taken around the country.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, using the exceptional powers available under the Order in Council, made further orders designating petrol stations and depots around the country priority suppliers, and requesting oil companies to ensure that available supplies were, in the first instance, used to keep those stations open. We received representations from priority users, businesses and the public about the lists, and in response made further orders adding other petrol stations and depots. On the list of petrol stations, we also specified about 300 outlets that were primarily to serve essential users. We issued a list of essential users, including important business sectors such as food distribution as well as the emergency services themselves.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister explain why animal feed companies on the list were not granted exemption under the derogation orders?

Mrs. Liddell: A number of issues were brought to the Department's attention when the emergency orders were put in place. Since then we have had an opportunity to review those matters. The list of exemptions is now much wider, and the number of designated filling stations is much greater. At the time, the main priority was to ensure that fuel supplies reached essential services—food distribution, in the first instance. The opportunity also existed to extend the orders if the disruption continued.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a factual question. Can the Minister tell us whether in her view, and according to the advice she has been given, the list of filling stations is now accurate? There were problems with the first list.
Is there now a publicly available list of those who are to be supplied as a matter of priority? And is there is a common place in government where anyone who wants any such information can have access to it on an up-to-date basis, either in the Minister's Department or in any other Department of State?

Mrs. Liddell: Let me explain how the list of priority filling stations and depots was compiled. It happened in consultation with the police and local authorities, following representation from essential users. As I have said, there is now a list of some 600.
The DTI is operating a telephone call centre. Anyone can telephone and find out whether their station or depot, or one that they would wish to use, is on the list. We shall certainly take steps to ensure that Members are aware of the full scope. Some have mentioned problems that arose in their constituencies last time. Many of those problems arose because of the speed with which the issues had to be addressed.
In addition to the September list of petrol stations, we specified about 300 outlets that were primarily to serve essential users. We issued a list of such users, including business sectors such as food distribution as well as the emergency services.
Although the powers under the Order in Council would have enabled us to issue legally binding directions, we decided that the arrangements should be non-statutory. They were handled by local authorities and the police, and co-ordinated by the Government office in each region. The emphasis was on common-sense decisions on the ground in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Graham Brady: My constituency contains a company called Clos-o-mat, which provides toilet facilities for disabled people. Although it is based in my constituency, it provides a service across the country. When I approached the Department asking for the company to be designated an essential user, I was told to advise the company to approach the local authority. Surely in the case of a company that provides a national service there is a need for a national designation, which should not depend on a single local authority.

Mrs. Liddell: I will take up the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not aware of the difficulty that was experienced in his constituency. We have learned a lot from the events in September. I hope that we have managed to overcome the problems, as he will find as I make progress, but I will look into the circumstances surrounding the difficulties in his constituency. I understand his anxiety about it.
Guidance on the measures taken in September was placed on Government websites and distributed through police stations, local authorities and health authorities. We set up two telephone hotlines for priority users and members of the public who wanted information. The situation returned to normal. I am sure that every hon. Member hopes that the disruption is not repeated, but the speed and scale of the disruption took everyone by surprise. It remains essential to ensure that disruption on that scale cannot be repeated.
For that reason, the Prime Minister set up a task force, which, on 29 September, published a memorandum of understanding between Government, the oil companies, trade unions, hauliers and the police. Its purpose is to ensure that fuel supply is maintained in the event of any future disruption by committing all signatories to take the necessary contingency action.
On 2 November, the Home Secretary further told the House that the task force was putting in place measures aimed at ensuring, in the event of future disruption, the delivery of fuel to petrol stations, with priority for essential users; better preparation for disruption by local authorities and other essential users; the availability of Ministry of Defence drivers to drive tankers as a last resort; the protection of food depots and other potential targets; and the keeping open of major roads. Last week, we reopened the Cabinet Office's national information and co-ordination centre, which will gather information to enable us to build an accurate picture of what happens throughout the country, so that extra support can be given to forces that need it.
I regret that we appear to be faced with threats of further disruption. We have no alternative but to seek extension of the exceptional powers, so that we can take responsible action to safeguard essential services. The Government are in no doubt that it is necessary to have those powers available for some time to come, in order to


take the action necessary to preserve essential supplies and services. The Government are firmly of the view that a situation continues to exist in which there is a real threat of disruption to fuel supplies and that it is our responsibility to be prepared to act quickly to maintain essential services, particularly at this season of the year.
The section of the Energy Act 1976 in question—section 3—had not previously been activated, so that was not something that we would do lightly. Careful thought was given before an order was sought in early September, and very careful thought has been given again to the issue, but it is our considered view that it is right and necessary to extend those powers.

Mr. Nick Gibb: For the record, I should like to declare an interest, which I have put in the Register of Members' Interests, concerning my overseas visit in September to meet representatives of oil companies, oil regulators and the Department of Energy in Washington at the invitation of the United States oil industry.
I listened carefully to the Minister's comments in introducing the order. I also listened carefully last week to the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement. The whole country watched hour by hour as the fuel protest in September brought the country to a complete standstill.
In addition to the order that the right hon. Lady proposes, another key document in the saga, as she mentioned, is the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the oil companies, police and road hauliers. All those documents—the memorandum, the order and the pre-Budget statement—deal with the symptoms of a problem, rather than the problem itself. The root of the issue is the Chancellor's decision from his first Budget onwards inexorably to continue to raise taxation on fuel, mortgages, marriage, pension funds, waste, insurance and property—extra taxation even on people over the age of 60. The total tax burden has added £670 a year to the tax bill of a typical family—over the lifetime of the Parliament £1,500 has been added to the bill of every taxpayer in Britain.
In four Budgets, the Government have increased fuel duty by 15p per litre, from 46p to 61p per litre. That is the principal reason for the increase in the petrol price at the pumps, from 59p when Labour came to power, to 82p now. There has been a 23p increase, of which 15p has been caused by taxation.
I shall put Labour's fuel duty increases in the order that they were made, starting with the earliest first. In July 1997, there was a 4p increase. That was followed, eight months later, in March 1998, with a 4.4p increase. In March 1999, there was a 3.8p increase. Finally, in March 2000, there was a 1.9p increase. That is the correct order of the increases. Now, let us see who in the Government got it right, and who got it right in the fastest time. In fact, no one in the Government got it right at all. There is a tedious dishonesty in the way in which Ministers seek to hide the 15p fuel duty increase.

Mr. Nigel Beard: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, in the past two years, the oil price per litre has increased by 19p, of which tax

accounts for only 2p, whereas the international oil market accounts for 17p of that increase? The "information" that the hon. Gentleman is giving us is, therefore, no more than fatuous propaganda.

Mr. Gibb: No. The point that I am making is that the Government are deliberately issuing false and fatuous propaganda on the issue. The hon. Gentleman is making the very point—almost verbatim—that the Minister for the Environment made in the House a few weeks ago. The Minister said:
Since the March 1999 Budget, petrol prices in the UK have risen from 66p per litre to about 80p per litre today, an increase of 14p, but only a very small percentage—[Official Report, 25 October 2000: Vol. 355, c. 235.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that this debate is on a quite narrow subject and hon. Members must not stray into the issue of general taxation, or even too far into the issue of petrol itself.

Mr. Gibb: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am just making some key preparatory remarks before dealing with the order itself.

Mr. Derek Twigg: When will we get to the order?

Mr. Gibb: We shall get to it in due course.
An example of the Government's false propaganda is that, although they accept that there has been a 14p increase since the March 1999 Budget, they say that, of that 14p, only 1.9p was caused by the 2000 Budget. Although that is correct, in the three previous Budgets, regardless of the world oil price, there were duty increases amounting to 13p. If those extra duties had not been imposed, petrol at the pump would be 15p per litre less than it is today. The dishonest use of statistics is one of the things that people find so distasteful about politicians and why there is such cynicism about United Kingdom politics and politicians.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gibb: No; I should like to make some progress before Mr. Deputy Speaker reprimands me again.
People also find the yah-boo arguments irritating. Of course the fuel duty escalator started under the previous Government. However, it started as an honest attempt to reduce fuel use and CO2 emissions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman guessed aright. I would be grateful if he would now confine his remarks to the order that we are debating.

Mr. Gibb: I shall obey your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point is that this is a self-made, self-inflicted crisis, and the Government are using the order to try to deal with its symptoms.
The order contains far-reaching powers for the Government. Under the order, as the Minister said, the Secretary of State may provide
for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, acquisition or use of —
(a) any of the following substances
including petrol, diesel and gas.
The order was made by Her Majesty on 11 September, as requested by the Minister, and laid before Parliament on 12 September. The House returned from the summer recess on 23 October. It has taken the Government until today, 13 November, before arranging for the order to be debated. Nevertheless, in her speech, the right hon. Lady said that the Government took the order very seriously indeed.
The order contains extensive powers which, frankly, should have been debated at the earliest possible time—24 October, or at least in our first week back. In fact, they should have been debated on the recall of Parliament, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called for in September. If the right hon. Lady is serious in her expressed concern that this is the first time that those powers have been used since the 1976 Act came into force, the Government should have recalled Parliament. The fuel protest was a crisis and these are serious powers. Why were the powers not debated earlier? Are they being debated today simply because if they were not, in six days' time they would lapse, under section 3 of the Energy Act 1976, which requires them to be debated within 28 days of the Order in Council when the House is sitting?
If passed, the order lasts for a full 12 months. Could the Minister tell the House about the Government's intentions regarding those powers? If it becomes clear over the next few weeks that they are no longer needed, will she move an order to revoke them? If not, why not? The Opposition would have had no objection to the powers being sought during what was clearly an emergency in September, and we shall not oppose the order tonight, but would it not make more sense simply to exercise those powers when they are needed, rather than now, when it is unclear whether they are required?
The exercise of the powers under the order appears to be something of a shambles. The main order was laid on 12 September. At 4 pm that same day, the Motor Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) Order was laid. That was revoked at 2 pm the next day and replaced by the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) Order which, in turn, was amended some two hours later by the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) (No. 2) Order.
Some 23 and a half hours after that, both orders were replaced by the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) (No. 3) Order, which itself lasted three and a half hours until 7 pm on 14 September when the No. 4 order replaced the No. 3 order. The No. 4 order was, in turn, replaced by the No. 5 order at 6 pm the following day.
I am pleased to tell the House that that order lasted a full two weeks until 4 pm on 29 September when the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) (No. 5) (Revocation) Order was made, revoking the whole lot. Could the Minister explain what

was going on with all the orders and revocations? Was it just a case of "Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring. Issue something—anything"? Were the original lists of designated filling stations and fuel depots contained in the earlier orders simply out of date and therefore wrong? Was that the reason for the numerous reissues?
What do those statutory instruments achieve? From reading them, it is not clear precisely what powers are being exercised. Issuing a list of so-called designated stations does not actually achieve anything unless it is accompanied by powers specifying who can use such filling stations, who is entitled to take fuel and who is not. I can see no such powers being exercised under any of the six statutory instruments. Could the Minister explain?
Is not the truth that the orders, as drafted, have no legal effect? The noble Lord Sainsbury said in the other place that the Secretary of State
subsequently made orders designating priority retail fuel sites and priority purposes to facilitate the orderly return to normal when protests ended.
Could the Minister confirm that that is an accurate statement? If it is, could she tell the House where in the orders it specifies the priority purposes referred to?

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is patiently taking the House through what passes for the logic of the Government in proposing the orders. We understand ministerial fetishes so far as orders are concerned, but would my hon. Friend be good enough, at this relatively early hour, to advise me what he regards as the improvement in the last order by comparison with the first?

Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The difference between the later and earlier orders is that the documents attached to them got thicker.
Lord Sainsbury went on to say:
we took the view that the arrangements should be non-statutory and handled on the ground by local authorities and the police…Guidance was placed on government websites…—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1436.]
That reflects what the right hon. Lady said earlier this evening. However, is it not rather a lax approach to place on local authorities and the police the duty to determine who could and could not obtain fuel from those filling stations, without having any legal authority? The basis for determining who qualified was made simply on the basis of a text of Department of Trade and Industry guidance issued on a Government website.
This issue is about the rule of law. To exercise powers—or, rather, not to exercise powers—through so-called guidance is surely an abrogation of that duty by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) gave an example of the difficulties that that causes at a constituency level. Would it not have been right to have issued such guidance through the proper exercise of a statutory instrument rather than through this curious vehicle?
From my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament during the crisis, the emergency planning officers in my area were rather perplexed by the absence of any explicit powers. They were given the duty to decide who should be allowed fuel and, with the police, were expected to enforce that on the ground. Had the crisis continued, the situation on the forecourts could have


become ugly, yet the enforcement officers had no legal powers to deal with matters and allocate fuel. What was the Minister's reasoning for that approach?
Another curious non-parliamentary document is the memorandum of understanding drawn up between the oil industry, road hauliers, the police, the Government and trade unions. Paragraph 6 says
the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales are willing to consider exercising their powers to permit certain flexibilities and temporary changes in the application of regulations …
Could the right hon. Lady explain the concept of permitting certain flexibilities? I understand the concept of exercising powers under statute to change regulations. However, I do not understand how permitting certain flexibilities works. Does it involve an order coming before the House, or is it simply Executive action not to enforce certain laws, without any recourse or accountability to Parliament?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady explain the Government's intentions on training the military and requisitioning private sector articulated fuel tankers? Do the Government intend to take powers under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as she said might be the case in her written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), if the fuel protests that we see today escalate?
New Labour in office is an interesting, if depressing, phenomenon. The Labour party was swept to office because people believed that new Labour had learned the key economic lessons espoused by the Conservatives over the previous 18 years. The truth is that they learned the key economic lessons of the problems that we faced in the past, but they have not understood those lessons, or how to apply the principles inherent in those lessons to future problems and to new circumstances.
Britain's main economic problem today—and it is a serious one—is our failure as a nation to benefit from productivity gains arising out of the new economy.

Mr. Beard: What has productivity to do with the order?

Mr. Gibb: I shall come to that in a moment. The United States has had five years of such gains. Britain, by contrast, has seen its productivity improvement rates fall from 2.4 per cent. on average to just 1.4 per cent. over the past three years, compared with the United States figure of 2.7 per cent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying well wide of the mark. Can he please come back to the order?

Mr. Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Productivity is one of Britain's key problems. We can see from the order that the Government are dealing with the symptoms of the problem, not the real problem. We need the Government to deal less with the symptoms of the problem, as epitomised by the order, and to deal instead with the deep-rooted economic problems facing the country.

Dr. Vincent Cable: My colleagues and I, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his response to the Home Secretary last week, have made it clear from the outset that we fully supported the Government's efforts to assume whatever powers were necessary to prevent massive disruption of emergency supplies and the economy. If it was right in principle to have powers to prevent Arthur Scargill's flying pickets from disrupting emergency supplies and the national economy, it is surely right that right-wing Arthur Scargills who are not bound by trade union legislation should be constrained in a comparable way. There must, of course, be a right to protest, and we defend it, but what has happened has been well in excess of what is acceptable.
In many ways, the order is probably academic. Its purpose has already been achieved. The combination of the threat of these powers and the ability and willingness of the police to act professionally to enforce the law over the past few days has effectively meant the crumbling of the protest movement to the point at which it is no longer a serious threat. Introducing the order is probably largely superfluous, although there may be contingencies under which problems could recur.
I shall devote most of my speech to the Minister's remark that we have learned a lot over the past two months. As we look back over the initial crisis, we can ask why the distribution system unravelled so rapidly and disastrously. If the emergency powers are designed to counter the problems that caused that, we should ask how they arose in the first place.
I used to work in the oil industry, although I have rather lost contact with it now. The origins of the problem lie in the fact that the mental picture that most of us have long had of the industry no longer applies. The old picture is of a command and control system and of oil that flowed from pumps in the ground to petrol pumps through integrated companies in an orderly fashion that ensured security of supply. That model has completely broken down. The distribution sector is now extremely competitive, comprising three quite different types of company. The first type is the big oil companies and some small and medium-sized companies, which still operate in the traditional way. Secondly, Tesco and Sainsbury's in many ways dominate oil distribution. Thirdly, independent companies compete with each other. It is a cut-throat and competitive industry in which margins are small.
There has, consequently, been tremendous pressure within the industry to cut costs and, arguably, corners. That has happened in two main ways. First, the industry runs on low stock levels. As in most industries, there is tremendous pressure to have minimum stock because stocks are costly. Inventories are run down to the lowest level possible, and that meant that the industry was exposed to disruption when, for the first time in its existence, it was seriously threatened. Secondly, to cut costs, the industry sub-contracted its tankerage operations, which meant that it did not have the power to instruct drivers to carry loads. Drivers were bound by contracts and penalty clauses, but they were not employees and no one could control them.
A further important factor, which has not been publicly discussed, is the health and safety culture of the industry. Since the Piper Alpha disaster and a series of others,


such as the Exxon Valdez, there has been a proper preoccupation with health and safety. Everyone in the oil industry is aware that every tanker, on road or on sea, is a mobile incendiary bomb. Enormous care must be taken. I do not know whether the arguments advanced in the emergency about health and safety were excuses or were reasonable, but that was one factor advanced by the industry to explain why so little could be done to get tankers on the road.
Having offered an analysis of the problem, I must turn to the action that the Government have taken. I shall only ask questions about that; I do not know the answers. If a memorandum of understanding exists with the industry, how far is it binding on all parts of the industry? I can understand how it is possible to have a memorandum of understanding with, say, BP, but it is less clear how a meaningful memorandum that is binding on large numbers of independent companies or supermarket chains can exist.
If there is a health and safety concern, how will that be met in emergency conditions? If an Army driver is driving a commandeered truck in an emergency and an explosion occurs, who has liability for such a disaster? Is it the company or the Government? Who is responsible for maintaining the health and safety standards that the industry believed to be a major constraint on its operations?
If the crisis has revealed a chronic stock shortage, have the Government decided what the proper level of stock should be? Presumably, there is a figure for the stocks of petrol or crude oil that we need to hold within our national boundaries for a week, a month or three months. An analysis must have been made, and it would be useful to be given some information about that. How far does the industry fall short in the provision of adequate security of supply through stocks? Who will pay for that? Under whose instructions will such stocks be provided? All those questions arise from our experience of the crisis. Can we learn from that for the long term?
In effect, the order updates a previous order made in 1976, when conditions were different. That measure incorporated substantial elements of price control. Is it intended that if the emergency powers were to be activated price control would apply, or is that a historic legacy from the previous measure? Is it an active provision under the emergency powers? How would price control powers be utilised?
We are all aware of the obvious problems of price control; for example, there would be a practical problem if the Government decided that in order to prevent profiteering in an emergency, the price of an oil product should be fixed, but as the operating company would be buying and selling crude oil in a volatile market, who would carry the risk associated with such price-controlled transactions? Is price control part of the package? Is it intended to be used actively?
Under the order, price control applies to natural gas. However, the price of natural gas is already controlled by a regulator. Do the powers supersede those of the regulator? To what extent are those powers over price control relevant to the action that the Government propose?
I was forcibly struck by the fact that suppliers anywhere in the world would be subject to the order. I do not understand what that means currently, although I can

understand what it might have meant in 1976. At that time, BP was still a mainly nationalised British company. Under emergency powers, for example, BP's activities in Alaska would have been governed according to British priorities. However, as that is no longer the case, it is difficult to understand how such powers could be applied extraterritorially, as would seem to be the intention. What is the meaning of the statement that supplies anywhere in the world should be subject to the order? What is its contemporary relevance?
We fully support the general principle that the emergency powers should be used to prevent the disruption of emergency supplies and of the national economy.

Mr. Keith Darvill: I fully support the order. There are law and order issues to be addressed. The people who took it upon themselves to restrict the flow of fuel to the nation were clearly putting lives at risk. They did so with no electoral mandate. They took to themselves rights that are denied to people involved in an industrial dispute. The reserve powers were thus needed for the protection of the public.
My second point is on the use of the powers. I had some experience of the crisis in the London borough of Havering, where the community management team worked to keep essential services going. The community management team is made up of the police, the local authority and representatives of the health and emergency services. It met immediately the fuel crisis arose, and put into effect policies to assist wherever possible.
After the crisis ended, the team reported to the community planning forum to which Members of Parliament in my area are invited. We discussed the powers and how efficient the team's planning had been. The only criticism was that there had been a lack of co-ordination at a central level in terms of the guidance that was given by Government Departments. At a local level, plans were made to meet the problems of keeping fuel flowing and providing special services, but the implementation of those plans was not helped by the different advice received from different Departments.
Different parts of the country had different experiences, so it would be useful to analyse those experiences to see whether the reserve powers will be able to deal with circumstances such as that arose during the crisis. An inquiry or report into those experiences should be debated on the Floor of the House, because it may be necessary to have different reserve powers on the statute book in future so that much more efficient arrangements can be put in place. I do not want to be critical, because the crisis was a unique experience that arose suddenly; none the less, I would like to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister's response to those points.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I want to ask a few brief questions. I have the privilege of having the headquarters of the defence fuel group in my constituency and the crisis has shown the importance of that tri-service organisation. Its reorganisation has proved to be effective and the group has worked hard to make contingency plans. I would like to show my appreciation of the work that it has done.
Is it correct to suggest that, as a result of the introduction of ultra-low sulphur petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel, this country will depend increasingly on imported refined products? Traditionally, we have refined the product in this country, having imported it in an unrefined state. However, is the ability of United Kingdom refineries to deliver the Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment that everyone would have access to ultra-low sulphur petrol by next March achievable only—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the terms of this debate. I would be grateful if he would confine his remarks to the order and its effects.

Mr. Chope: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is my understanding that, under the powers in the order, the Secretary of State can intervene to direct the distribution and production of particular types of fuel. Because the order will extend over the next 12 months, will the Minister tell us whether it can be used in any circumstances to ensure that ultra-low sulphur petrol is distributed to 100 per cent. of petrol stations by March, as the Chancellor has said it would be?
Under the price control mechanisms in the order, did the Department—and particularly the Prime Minister—intervene in September to ensure that the price of petrol at filling stations did not rise above 79.9p immediately after the ending of the fuel protest and at the start of the 60-day period? It has been said that the Prime Minister used influence—backed, perhaps, by the powers in this order—to put pressure on the oil companies to keep down the price of fuel at the filling station. Consequently the wholesale price of diesel increased by about 8p a litre, and within a fortnight no fewer than 164 of the country's small filling stations went out of business. They will not reopen, and that will exacerbate the distribution problem to which the Minister referred in her opening remarks. I would be grateful if she could tell us who took responsibility for that price control exercise, and under which powers.
Will the Minister also deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), among others, about the impact of tax on the availability of stocks? As I understand it, filling stations large and small have to pay the 75 per cent. tax on fuel as soon as it is brought out of the refinery and delivered to them. Not surprisingly, they do not want to hold large stocks that they cannot sell within two or three days if they have to pay that much tax in advance. However, the refineries do not have to account to the Exchequer for the tax that they receive from the filling stations for 60 days. Does the Minister accept that the need for the order would have been significantly reduced if the Government had changed the tax regime as it impacts on individual filling stations?
Finally, the Minister said that many lessons had been learned in the past few weeks. Do the Government now believe that it would be more sensible to make greater use of pipeline distribution of fuel than has been the case hitherto?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I return to my earlier point about the definition of priority users which was picked up by the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). I understand that under the current arrangements, which were introduced in September in the order approved by the Privy Council, priority users are defined by local authorities even though they may service the whole of the United Kingdom. In my area and elsewhere, that led to confusion. The arrangement also makes it difficult for people to access information about priority users centrally because central Government Departments will tell them to ask their local authority, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said.
Would it not be better if priority user categories were decided centrally? Otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has pointed out, and as the events of the past few months have demonstrated, there will be confusion locally and nationally. There may also be a sense of injustice because someone who may be regarded as a priority user by one local authority is not regarded as such elsewhere. Such an arrangement does not work well for industry advisers or for those who are trying to go about their business.

Mrs. Liddell: I have taken careful note of several points that have been made. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a common-sense point, and I undertake to ensure that my officials consider it carefully.
I regret to say that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has misjudged the seriousness of the situation that we are discussing. He sought an opportunity to engage in party political tit for tat, and the importance of these issues transcends that. I urge him to take a leaf out of the book of his colleague Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who spoke on these matters in another place. We are discussing steps to ensure the protection of the vulnerable in our society and of the prosperity of the nation.

Mr. Gibb: I accept that these points are very serious, but I do not believe that the right hon. Lady believes that they are very serious. If she did, she would have agreed to the recall of Parliament as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a few days after the order was laid. If such matters are so important, why did not she, her party and the Prime Minister recall Parliament?

Mrs. Liddell: The greater responsibility at the time was to ensure that the country was no longer disrupted. Indeed, that view has been broadly shared among many hon. Members. I deplore the way in which the hon. Gentleman is trying to engage in a post mortem of a situation in September. He asked why the order is before the House this evening. It is because the order runs out on 19 November and it is important to ensure that the Government can take action if necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there was not an earlier debate. I suspect that he has not been paying attention. There was a debate on the fuel crisis during the first week


following the summer recess—the week beginning 23 October. The Home Secretary made a statement on 2 November. In another place, there was an oral question on the matter on 5 October, and a debate on the order on 7 November. There have been many opportunities to debate the fuel crisis. Tonight, we are about trying to ensure that we have the measures in place to protect essential services and the prosperity of the nation should there be future disruption in the event of action taken at filling stations or elsewhere.
The Energy Act 1976 provides the Government with temporary and exceptional powers to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, acquisition or use of fuel and electricity, either where there is imminent and actual threat of emergency in the UK affecting fuel or electricity supplies, or to meet international obligations. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to that. We must meet certain international obligations. I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the oil industry. Some of his points on changes in the way in which the oil industry does its business were very important. The introduction of the just-in-time system, not just in the oil industry but in manufacturing, was very much underlined by the situation that we faced in September.
While I am on health and safety issues, I should point out that, following Piper Alpha, any one employee in the oil industry who has an anxiety about safety may, without reference to a superior, cause a stoppage or conclude the process in which he or she is involved. That is understandable in the wake of Piper Alpha.
I know from discussions with tanker drivers—I visited the refineries—that many were very much aware of what they were driving. In effect, as the hon. Member for Twickenham explained, they were driving a highly explosive device—a mobile bomb. Because of the 180 cases of intimidation, details of which are available in the Library, drivers were anxious about what might happen to them. There were instances of bricks, plumb lines and so on being thrown from bridges, and of tankers being forced on to the hard shoulder. That is very frightening not just for the tanker driver but for society in general. The worry about what might happen was considerable. The issue of health and safety must predominate in the oil industry, and I, as the Minister with responsibility for Energy, would not want it to be otherwise.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the use of Ministry of Defence drivers. Such drivers have been trained, but in the hope that it will not be necessary to use them. I should point out, however, that, in directing those controlling the tankers to co-operate with the police or the military in securing supplies, we are not taking powers directly to requisition tankers. That is an important point, which must be borne in mind.
The Emergency Powers Act 1920 provides wide powers to make regulations which could be used to control goods or instruct members of the public or companies where the community's essentials of life or transport system are threatened by disruption of the supply and distribution of goods, including fuels. In such circumstances, the Act could be used to requisition tankers or create exclusion zones around specific sites. However, I am sure that the House, like me, hopes that the likelihood of that is extremely remote.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to make political capital out of the previous orders that were laid. The speed, scale and effect of the disruption last time took everyone by surprise, and measures had to be implemented quickly. I accept that there was a degree of confusion, and we have reviewed the arrangements so that we are better prepared for any repetition of the disruption. The changes in the regulations reflect consultation with business, local authorities and the police. Rather than criticise, Conservative Members should congratulate local authorities, the police and business throughout the country on the hard work that they put in to ensure that fuel supplies were maintained as far as possible and normality returned as quickly as possible.
The orders demonstrate flexibility in a fast-moving situation. We are trying to ensure that we have in place orders that allow us to act flexibly and to take into account the nature of future disruption, which I hope will not occur.

Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady explain the purpose of the five orders issued under the previous Order in Council? What do they achieve legally?

Mrs. Liddell: The purpose is to give the Secretary of State powers, for example, to designate priority filling stations and depots. I am sure the House recognises that that is critical, especially as, although many public service and local authority users get their fuel from depots, a significant number, especially those in rural areas, get their fuel from ordinary filling stations. That is why it is necessary to designate such filling stations.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have gone through the 25 pages of the documents, and I can find only two designated filling stations in my constituency, which is a big one with a large rural collar. There are 600 outlets nationwide. Is there a cap on the total number of filling stations that can be designated, or can local authorities, in conjunction with police, propose additional garages?

Mrs. Liddell: Local authorities, in conjunction with police, constructed the list. There is no artificial cap. I undertake to examine the position in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady explain the effect of designation? As far as I can tell, all that the lesser statutory instruments issued under the order do is provide a list of filling stations—that is it. They provide no powers other than the power to create a list. What is the legal effect of creating the list?

Mrs. Liddell: The filling stations will be given fuel on a priority basis—that is the purpose of the list of designated filling stations.
I must now try to address the substantial number of points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) appears to have misunderstood the purpose of the order, in that he talked about ultra-low sulphur petrol and dependence. I am sure that his intention was not mischievous and that he of all people recognises the importance of these matters. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that fuel of whatever sort is needed is available. In September, some areas


experienced a shortage of unleaded petrol; in such cases, the Secretary of State would be anxious to ensure that unleaded petrol was supplied to filling stations, even if leaded petrol was available at those stations. The same applies to supplies of diesel and ultra-low sulphur petrol. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to score some petty political point. The key requirement is to make sure that fuel is available in filling stations for essential services.

Mr. Chope: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell: I would prefer to make progress.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the price control powers were used in September. They were not. He also mentioned the use of pipelines. Pipelines are used to supply operations such as major airports, but they are expensive to install. It is unlikely that additional pipelines will be constructed in the year in which the order will apply.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the explanatory note. As set out in the explanatory note to each order, the depots and filling stations were designated to allow the Secretary of State to make further orders or to give directions under the Energy Act 1976 by reference to those premises. In the event, in September the oil companies agreed on a voluntary basis to direct fuel to the designated sites and to supply at those sites only the categories of persons that the Secretary of State had instructed should be supplied.
A great deal of publicity was given to those arrangements at that time. Many of the 24-hour news channels on television had text at the bottom of the screen giving details of the filling stations available in particular areas.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham for the support that he has shown to the Government on this matter. We hope that the need for the orders is academic. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the need for them may have passed, but I believe that it is prudent for the Government to ensure that we can protect the most vulnerable and the nation's prosperity. That is the reason why the orders will lie, whether or not we need them during the next year.
On the points that the hon. Gentleman made arising from his own experience, the oil industry has learned a lot from the past couple of months. It has learned how its procedures can lead to disruption. With his background, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a certain level of stocks are held—not in the same way as the strategic supplies in the United States, but there is a minimum level of 63 days, I think, in case of a major disruption of supply in the UK. We believe that those stocks should be used for emergency purposes, not as a means of manipulating the market. They should be available, should some extraneous event cause a disruption to UK supplies.
The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about liability for tanker accidents. An indemnity has been negotiated with the oil companies and hauliers to cover losses arising from tankers being driven by service drivers. Where a service driver was at fault, the Secretary of State for Defence would be vicariously liable in any event.
The hon. Gentleman asked about price controls. Those were not necessary during the September disruption, and we hope that they will never be necessary, but the Government are determined to do whatever is necessary to maintain supplies. As this point, it is important for us not to second-guess what attempts might be made to disrupt supplies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) made an important point about the need for co-ordination and communication. I hear what he says. The Government have been examining closely the requirements for co-ordination and communication and have been taking advice from many of those with whom we had dealings during the September situation.
As regards behaviour in the marketplace, the hon. Member for Christchurch asked about the difficulties of some small filling stations. The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering complaints about anything that may be construed as anti-competitive behaviour. The Office of Fair Trading has received complaints about differential pricing policies and is examining the matter. The OFT has written to oil companies to ask for information on their wholesale pricing policies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch acknowledges that it is up to the Director General of Fair Trading to consider whether action under competition legislation is required.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: I must try to draw my remarks to an end.

Mr. Gibb: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: I shall take one final question, and then I wish to make progress.

Mr. Gibb: This is an important question, which I asked earlier. If it becomes clear in the next few weeks or months that the powers are no longer required, will the Minister return to the House with a revocation order, or will she leave them in existence for a full 12 months?

Mrs. Liddell: In considering that question, we get into interesting debates about what would make it clear that no further disruption will occur. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect a responsible Government to take responsibility for decisions. That means that we have to consider access to powers, in case we need them. I cannot discuss what would make it clear that no further disruption was likely. We are taking action to maintain supplies to essential users and essential industries. One of the regrettable aspects of events in September was that people at refinery gates tried to define essential and non-essential users.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to score political points at the beginning of his remarks. I stress to him that responsible government means making decisions that mean that some people are sometimes disappointed. The Government are working to provide a long-term future for the whole economy, based on low, stable interest and mortgage rates and sound public finances on the basis of which people and businesses can plan ahead. We will not sacrifice the


economic stability that we have built up by reacting to short-term pressures in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The reserve powers to which the Order in Council provides access enable us to make special arrangements to safeguard supplies of fuel to essential services. I emphasise that we hope that it will not be necessary to use them in the foreseeable future. However, we make it clear that we have a duty to take appropriate precautionary measures. Given the clear potential of the disruption of fuel supply seriously to damage society, business and the most vulnerable, I see no scope for disagreement, and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2449) dated llth September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th September, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

FEES AND CHARGES

That the draft Consular Fees Act 1980 (Fees) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.

Ordered,

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

That Mr. Phil Willis be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Richard Allan be added to the Committee.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

That Mr. David Wilshire be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. John Maples be added to the Committee.

HEALTH

That Mr. Robert Syms be discharged from the Health Committee and Mrs. Marion Roe be added to the Committee.[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish to present a petition in the name of Mrs. Sue Baillie of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood Cleft Lip and Palate Association and 1,242 fellow signatories.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
The Humble Petition of Cleft Lip and/or Palate NHS Patients and their Parents, Guardians, Carers, Grandparents, Relatives and Supporters sheweth
That having not received clear openness and transparency during the implementation of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group recommendations on Cleft Lip and Palate Services, and being denied fair and reasonable representation in the decision making process,
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will request the Secretary of State for Health to initiate a full and independent quality audit of all current Cleft Lip and Palate Units before the designation of new centres. Your Petitioners also pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Health to reconsider the number of unit closures necessary in order to provide the new service without further unnecessary hardship for patients and their families.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Hospitals (West London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. John Wilkinson: Today, the public consultation period for the proposals on modernising specialist acute hospital services in west London put forward by Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority on behalf of the West London Partnership Forum of four health authorities in west London comes to an end.
This speech is my submission not only to Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority but to Parliament and the country on behalf of my constituents, and on behalf of the thousands throughout the United Kingdom and overseas who are appalled by the planned closure of Harefield hospital. They have expressed by letter, phone, fax, e-mail, petition and their presence at the five public consultation meetings in the Hillingdon borough their rightful indignation about what is proposed.
I have consistently sought to put the truth before the public, not only in my Adjournment debate of 2 December 1998 but in the summer Adjournment debate of 28 July 2000, in numerous parliamentary questions, in meetings with Ministers, letters to Ministers and in contributions at every consultation meeting held in the Hillingdon borough.
There has been little controversy over the proposals for specialist paediatric and renal hospital services in west London, but that a supposedly responsible national health service forum should propose the closure of Harefield hospital, the most famous cardiothoracic hospital in Britain, without even putting forward its modernisation and development as an option for consultation, has caused outrage.
Harefield has undertaken more transplants—more than 2,000—than any other cardiothoracic hospital in the world. Under the leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, voted by the nation's television viewers as man of the year only a few weeks ago, its reputation for excellence and total devotion to patient care is unsurpassed anywhere. This is something that the general public understand. They accord the highest esteem to the human and even spiritual values represented by the dedication of Harefield's staff to the healing of broken hearts and lungs.
By contrast, what the West London Partnership Forum seems to hold in the highest esteem are the asset values of Harefield and the Royal Brompton hospitals. That is an unworthy and narrow perspective, as the future of Britain's most famous heart and lung hospital transcends west London or even the capital as a whole. Its patients come from far and wide, and only just over 10 per cent. come from the Hillingdon borough where it is situated.
The motives of those who would transplant idyllically tranquil rural Harefield to one of the most congested, polluted, noisy, crime-ridden, overcrowded, concrete jungles of inner London are bound to be criticised and scrutinised. They merit further deep investigation.
The conduct of the consultation process was unseemly from its inception in late July at the height of the holiday season. There was overwhelming public opposition to the

destruction of Harefield, which the West London Partnership Forum had proposed, but the NHS representatives in their total intransigence showed a disturbing contempt for democracy, and utter lack of interest in any proposals other than their own. I hope they now give the impressive written responses from the Heart of Harefield campaign, residents associations, the borough council, Community Voice, the community health council, patients groups and individuals the genuine consideration that they deserve.
The Secretary of State too, if he is a democrat, should demand to study those responses. He knows the strength of public feeling, and has had letters of public protest enough. On 26 April, a petition with more than 80,000 signatures was delivered to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing street—an event which can hardly have passed him by, especially as it was well televised and led by an eight-year-old double heart transplant former patient, Sophie Park, and by the then leader of Hillingdon borough council, councillor Richard Barnes, now the Greater London Assembly councillor for Ealing and Hillingdon.
If care of patients were poor at Harefield, the fiercest critics would be its patients past and present. However, the Hamsters—the Harefield transplant club, which represents those who have had transplants there—are its staunchest supporters, as are members of the Rebeat club, which is affiliated to the British Heart Foundation and has some 400 members nationwide—people who are, or have been, patients at Harefield hospital, and their close relatives.
Were there a cogent case for Harefield hospital's closure, I as the local Member of Parliament would have had it represented to me by my electors, but I have not. Moreover, all parties on Hillingdon borough council would not have voted together to save and develop the hospital unless that were the wish of local residents.
There is much rhetoric about the NHS's response to the views of patients and the public. Indeed, the heading of the first chapter of the NHS national plan describes its vision as
a health service designed around the patient.
To modernise Harefield would cost a tiny proportion of the £180 million net capital cost of building and equipping the new hospital at Paddington basin, whose gross cost would be about twice as high were it not for the proceeds from selling the Royal Brompton and Harefield sites.
What is more, the outline business case projects that the closure of the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals will be set against a requirement for only an extra nine cardiothoracic beds by 2006, which is when the new hospital is due to be completed, and an extra 27 by 2011. In relation to the overall number of beds in west London in the hospitals affected by the proposed changes, only an extra 24 beds are projected by 2011—an extra hundredth of a bed per 1,000 population.
Clearly, more than health economics is involved. I suggest the answer lies in the strategic objective to regenerate the Paddington basin in central London, to which aim Harefield hospital and its staff are intended to be sacrificed. I do not think that the prognosis for the Paddington basin site is good, because it was flooded on 2 November.
Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster is the health authority in the West London Partnership Forum, which is leading on the forum's proposal to sell Harefield


hospital and put the proceeds together with those from the sale of its hospital trust partner, the Royal Brompton, into the development of a new cardiothoracic hospital in Paddington as part of what the forum, in its outline business case, describes as
the most significant land development programme in London since Docklands.
The House should note that the arbiter as well as the conductor of the public consultation process is the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. In an ethical world, the arbiter would be independent and objective, such as a health authority outside the area concerned. However, in this case the vested interest of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster is clear, as it is progenitor, proposer, arbiter, prospective executor and beneficiary of the proposals.
Were there natural justice, such a flagrant business and pecuniary interest on the part of the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority would invalidate the whole consultation process because, to quote the West London Partnership Forum again:
St. Mary's NHS Trust and Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority are both members of the Paddington regeneration partnership. This group of landowners, business and local stakeholders has the objective of establishing Paddington as a premier residential and business district of London and to provide sustainable economic vitality for the area ensuring that the products of regeneration benefit the surrounding communities.
Over the 10 to 15—year development period, the combined schemes are due to create more than 30,000 jobs. Little thought is given to the jobs to be lost at Harefield, which has little employment other than the hospital, and hardly any of the hospital's staff are willing to move to Paddington.
The problems of access, parking, accommodation for visitors and staff, road user charges and physical safety for rehabilitating patients and their relatives are plain to all—except the West London Partnership Forum. The problems of travelling to Paddington should alone invalidate the Paddington basin site. However, Harefield is the optimum location: set in green belt in rural Middlesex with ample gardens and lawns, it has a helipad, cheap and friendly accommodation and easy access to the M4, M40, M1, M25, Heathrow, Luton, Northolt and Denham airfields, the tubes at Uxbridge and Northwood and rail services at Watford and at Denham.
History repeats itself, but each generation is reluctant to accept the lessons of the past. In her history of the hospital, "Heart of Harefield", the former consultant surgeon at Harefield, Mary Shepherd, points out that, in response to a report by the London Health Planning Consortium, which had similar centralising plans in 1979, Harefield commented on that report's lack of evidence for cardiac centres located in general or in teaching hospitals performing better than those that were not. She said that
on the contrary the available evidence suggests otherwise the proposals … for relocation … are not based on the preservation and development of existing standards of excellence for the benefit of the public but on the sterile logic of planning and perhaps the personal predilection of the authors…For service to patients teaching should be a subordinate consideration.
It is noteworthy that Harefield's finest work has been done in the past 20 years—since it beat off the threat to its survival from the London Health Planning Consortium.

I again quote from its historic and mercifully triumphant response of 20 years ago:
We must point to a simple truth … nowhere acknowledged in the report —
nor in this one, for that matter —
the peculiar genius which inspires a team in our demanding speciality cannot be uprooted and expected to flourish elsewhere … talk of transplanting this excellence is simply a euphemism for its destruction.
Industrial relations and service to the public are excellent. It has the space and ability to expand. Its location is more convenient for patients who come from all over the country and the world than any of the hospitals amongst whom it is proposed to divide its work. The quality of its treatment and the quiet peace of the surroundings outweigh all other considerations. The public is entitled to hear better reasons for its destruction.
Founded in 1915 as a hospital for Australian soldiers wounded in the great war—No. 1 auxiliary hospital of the Australian Imperial Forces—Harefield hospital has performed devoted service to the sick in peace and in war. As was written of the ANZAC casualties, who are still commemorated by the schoolchildren of the village every ANZAC day when they lay flowers on the 107 graves in St Mary's churchyard,
For here in Harefield for them some corner of a foreign field, brave hearts find peace under an English heaven
Long may it remain.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing the debate. It gives the House an opportunity to discuss the existing disposition of some of the specialist services in west London, and the case for change that underpins the proposals for reorganisation that are currently the subject of public consultation. As the hon. Gentleman said, public consultation is about to close.
Although I shall inevitably need to rehearse some of the arguments lying behind the proposals that are currently out to consultation, it is important that I do not prejudge, or give any sense that I am prejudging, the consultation. Ministers will clearly need to approach the consultation, if and when it finally comes to us, with a fresh and open mind in regard to the issues that are raised. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, for that reason, I do not engage in a detailed debate with him about some of his points. I think that would be wrong, given the present stage of the public consultation.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does the Minister recognise that concern about the future of Harefield extends beyond the boundaries of the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)? In particular, does he recognise that my constituents' concern relates particularly to access to cardiothoracic services, and will he ensure that that is taken into consideration in the final decision about the future of Harefield?

Mr. Denham: I recognise the broad spectrum represented by those who are concerned about the issue. I have received letters from my own constituents about the future of Harefield hospital, and there is a wide range of issues—including those relating to access and transport—that will have been reflected in the public


consultation. If it is referred to Ministers, they will have to take careful account of those issues in the future. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's points, and his local concerns in particular.
The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood concentrated—as I think we all anticipated—on the future of Harefield hospital. It is one of the best—known heart and lung hospitals in the NHS, and I want to place on record the high regard in which we hold those services and the staff who provide them.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the future of Harefield hospital on many occasions on behalf of his constituents. I think we all know that, under the inspirational clinical leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, Harefield hospital has been remarkably successful in its development of heart and lung services. It has also become a centre where research and development is an integral part of its work to improve life expectancy and the quality of life for those with serious cardiothoracic conditions.
Specialist care of the type that has been pioneered at Harefield is a crucial part of services that are provided for people with coronary heart disease. Services that begin with health promotion continue through primary care settings, with general practitioners and their staff assessing and diagnosing patients, referring them to cardiologists in the local acute hospital, As part of that pattern of service, emergency services are involved, including the highly trained paramedic ambulance crews who respond to the sudden and devastating coronary accident.
Many coronary heart disease patients are treated successfully without the need for referral to a specialist centre such as Harefield. Nevertheless, for those with particularly complex medical or surgical needs, the expertise available at Harefield and other centres of excellence can be the difference between life and death, and can give much improved quality of life and life expectancy.
No hospital is immune to pressures. Hospitals must modernise if they are to remain a vital and effective part of the larger entity that is the NHS. The willingness to embrace necessary change is key if we are to begin to build a modern NHS to meet the needs of patients both nationally and locally in west London. Harefield, along with the Royal Brompton, Hammersmith and St Mary's, is one of several centres in west London that provides specialist heart and lung services.
The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the background to the service reviews that have led to the public consultation by Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. The consultation has been on proposals for modernising specialist acute hospital services in west London. It has run for some four months from July until today. The fragmentation of specialist heart and lung, renal and specialist children's services has long been of concern to all those who wish to see continued improvement in clinical care and outcomes and in education, training and research.
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as part of the independent review of London's health services, the Government asked Sir Leslie Turnberg to assess the need

for change in west London. He was also asked to look at the process that had been developed involving both the NHS and its academic partners in shaping the change.
Sir Leslie was encouraged by the progress that he saw. His report registered a particular concern that the way in which the service is currently organised in west London might not be maximising its long—term contribution to national and international research. He advised the Government to ensure that plans for a more rational distribution of specialist services throughout west London were achieved. The hon. Gentleman may recall that, unlike the previous Administration with regard to many of the reviews that they commissioned, this Government did not cherry—pick the expert independent advice that they received.
In the Government's response to Sir Leslie's report, we accepted all the recommendations that it made. In taking forward recommendations, the NHS Executive asked hospitals and health authorities in that area of west London, along with Imperial College, to take part in a review of specialist cardiac and thoracic services. That review commissioned expert clinical input from a panel chaired by Sir Terence English, an internationally respected figure in heart transplantation who completed the first successful heart transplant in the UK, and a past president of the Royal College of Surgeons. The review was completed in July 1998. It broadly confirmed Sir Leslie Turnberg's impression that cardiac and thoracic services in west London were not organised in a way that would continue to support the highest quality service and academic endeavour.
Sir Terence English advised that three out of the four cardiac centres in west London were not seeing a sufficient number of patients to support the highest quality of patient care or research and teaching. He recommended that existing services should be focused on fewer, larger centres. He also advised that co—location of specialist cardiac services with other related specialties would bring benefits not available to single specialty hospitals such as Harefield.
We have a number of specialist hospitals in the NHS that, through the immense talent and vision of a small number of specialists, have developed services of the highest quality and innovation. In certain instances, those hospitals find themselves with a relatively small number of patients. They can be geographically isolated from other hospitals and from other related specialties. There is growing evidence that suggests that clinical risk is best managed by ensuring that highly specialised services are undertaken in large, multi—disciplinary centres, where all appropriate support specialties are close at hand.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the possible future location of those services. I can assure him that the aim of the proposals—certainly, my aim in considering any proposals—will be to ensure that patients are winners in terms of being able to access services that are uniformly of the highest standard; and that staff are winners in terms of working in multi—disciplinary teams enjoying state of the art facilities and the best education and training opportunities. We aim to ensure that researchers are winners in terms of having the best opportunity to undertake programmes of excellence and innovation worthy of the 21st century.
The West London Partnership Forum, chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree, a Minister for Health under the previous Administration, was established to enable senior


clinicians and managers in the NHS to discuss with colleagues in Imperial College how they should respond to the call within Sir Leslie Turnberg's review of London's health services for a more rational distribution of specialist care in London.
On 14 February 2000, the forum announced that its preferred option was for a new specialist heart and lung hospital alongside specialist children's services next to a rebuilt St Mary's hospital, as part of the Paddington basin scheme, which is London's biggest redevelopment. The forum's preferred option would also see the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust become the west London centre for specialist renal services.
As soon as the forum had a set of proposals, it laid them before the public in a consultation exercise. During the consultation period, the NHS has made available to the public large amounts of information to support the arguments in favour of the forum's preferred option and the other options considered. It has certainly been one of the biggest ever consultation exercises on proposals for change in the NHS, with 12 public meetings and large numbers of people attending each of them. There is an internet site with the consultation document available upon it. There will also be a further special public meeting, on 29 November, before the health authority considers the outcome of public consultation at its meeting on 13 December.
My understanding is that every effort has been made to ensure that those with an interest in the future of those services have had the opportunity to make their views heard. As I said at the beginning, I am unable to comment on the possible outcome of public consultation, as my position as Minister prevents me from doing so. However, our aim is to ensure that any change that flows from the process will be to the benefit of patients.
I do, however, understand that some people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have strong feelings about the proposed changes. Harefield village quite clearly identifies with the hospital as an institution and sees it as part of the local community. The letters that I have received about Harefield express concerns about the proposed changes.
I should like to take this opportunity to mention various decisions that demonstrate our commitment to Harefield, both the hospital and the wider community. I should also like to remind the House that, regardless of the outcome of public consultation, capital investment is both justified and continues to be made in the fabric and services at Harefield hospital. A new patient services centre, for example, is being built at a capital cost of £4.2 million.

We are also contributing £2.5 million towards phase 2 of the heart sciences centre, which is a research facility that was opened in 1992. The case has been made for further development of the facility, to provide new laboratories to facilitate research in the areas of gene therapy, chronic rejection, homograft valve research and tissue engineering. When he was Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), made a commitment to provide £2 million towards the project.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently met Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub and, at that meeting, agreed to provide a further £500,000 towards phase 2 of the heart sciences centre. I think that that can be seen as reaffirming our commitment to support that centre.
The Secretary of State also heard more of current developments at Harefield and of the uncertainty that is inevitably felt at this time. Although there is no question of pre—empting the outcome of public consultation, he agreed to fund a feasibility study to explore the possible use of the Harefield site as a science park in the event that a decision is made to centralise clinical services elsewhere. I must emphasise that the feasibility study is being undertaken as a precautionary measure and in no way prejudges the outcome of the public consultation. I add that that study has been welcomed by health organisations in north-west London.
The common objective of all the Government's plans for the modernisation of the national health service is to ensure that the patient has equitable access to high—quality care and treatment. That is the objective of the NHS plan and of the national service framework for coronary heart disease. I believe that that is an objective shared by those who have been developing proposals for the re—organisation of specialist NHS cardiothoracic, renal and children's services in west London.
Whatever the outcome that follows from those proposals, the legacy of Harefield and its staff under the clinical leadership of Sir Magdi will be safeguarded for the benefit of tomorrow's patients. Harefield's contribution to the NHS is one that should be celebrated. I want to express my recognition and appreciation of that contribution—a contribution that will remain central to the success of clinical services, education and research for heart and lung disease and be recognised not only nationally, but all the way around the globe.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve midnight.